A Multi-Agent System for E-Insuran

e Brokering

Luís Nogueira1 , Eugénio Oliveira2

1
Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto,
Instituto Polité ni o do Porto
luisdei.isep.ipp.pt
2
Fa uldade de Engenharia,
Universidade do Porto, LIACC
e ofe.up.pt

Abstra t. Until re ently, ele troni markets were dominated by the

ombination of stati oer plus xed pri ing poli ies. Stati oer s hemes
assume that all users have the same riteria whi h may not meet the re-
quirements of all potential buyers. A xed pri e might not always ree t
the urrent market balan e of supply and demand and the spe i val-
uation of a single buyer. In this paper we propose an agent-mediated
insuran e brokering system using a exible negotiation model that in-
ludes multi-attribute bidding as well as some kind of learning apabili-
ties. Moreover, in the ore of the provided brokering fa ility, we are using
on eptual lustering pro edures as an approa h to better mat h us-
tomers and insuran e produ t oers providing a valuable add-on to both
ustomer's and sellers' sides. Intelligent agents engage themselves in a ne-
gotiation pro ess by ex hanging proposals and ounter-proposals trying
to onvin e opponents to modify their bidding values. We are now devel-
oping a Java based multi-agent infrastru ture spe i ally dedi ated to
the insuran e e- ommer e domain, exploiting Toshiba's Bee-gent frame-
work. For both a eptability and generalisation purposes, XML (in lud-
ing appropriate ontology-based messages) has been hosen as our agent
ommuni ation format.

1 Introdu tion
Ele troni market pla es for su h produ ts as books, CDs, omputer software and
hardware have developed quite rapidly on the Internet. Comparative shopping
tools for su h goods are still evolving. However, there are important dieren es
between selling the type of goods mentioned above and selling insuran e and
other nan ial produ ts over the Internet. This paper explores some of those
dieren es from both the insurers' and ustomers' perspe tives and des ribes
the development of a multi agent system through whi h produ ts (and servi es)
oered by insuran e ompanies ould be better evaluated and sele ted. From
the ustomers side point of view, more interesting information an be found,
even things that the ustomer did not think of before. On the other hand, the
ele troni market system, with its intimate knowledge of who the user is and
what he wants, an shorten the time needed for nding an appropriate insur-
an e produ t. Insurers an then use information automati ally olle ted during
negotiation to develop a more ustomer-dire ted kind of marketing strategy. In-
formation about the ustomer an be used to nd out what he is interested in
and, therefore, a more personalised produ t ould be oered.

2 Ele troni Markets and Insuran e

The insuran e business is based on selling a servi e at a given risk. Insurers
have to make premiums high enough to over the fore ast level of laims but
also to keep them low enough to be attra tive in an in reasingly ompetitive
market. The balan e between prot and risk is fundamental to the su ess of
any insuran e business.
It's a mu h di ult task to mat h the insuran e requirements of a ustomer
with appropriate nan ial omplex produ ts than, for example, nding those
shops that sell a spe i book. An insuran e poli y has benets, onditions and
ex lusions that add detail to the high level overage features advertised by the
insurer.
The availability of an insuran e produ t may be determined a ording to the
risk prole of the ustomer. Customers will be asked to supply enough infor-
mation from whi h insurers have the ability to make a proposal. An ele troni
market will therefore need to provide a fa ility, apable of exploiting this bidi-
re tional ex hange of information.
The need for insurers to understand the individual risk, and for ustomers to
understand the features, benets, onditions and ex lusions of proposed prod-
u ts result in a substantial dialogue between insurers and their ustomers. An
ele troni market therefore has to be able to manage su h a dialogue, whi h
may be ondu ted by a ustomer with more than one insurer simultaneously.
Customers will not wish to be asked a su ession of similar questions by ea h
insurer in turn, preferring that a market entity ondu t a single dialogue on their
behalf.
But this dialogue often involves ondential information. In most situations
sensitive information su h as date of birth, medi al history, annual in ome, an
be withheld, and the buyer an remain anonymous, until the point at whi h a
pur hase de ision has been made. This is not the ase with insuran e, where the
insurer requires su h ondential information to be dis losed before an oer an
be prepared. In [17℄ a staged dialogue has been proposed to over ome this prob-
lem. The in reasingly detailed information is ex hanged over time, and at any
point the ustomer or the insurer may de ide to dis ontinue the dialogue be ause
either the produ ts being dis ussed do not mat h the ustomer's requirements,
or be ause the ustomer's risk information is su h that the insurer does not wish
to put forward an oer.
Hen e ea h ustomer's route through the system is dependent on their own
requirements and personal onditions. Insurers will then have a more omplete
pi ture of the ustomer and oer an appropriate produ t.
Insurers wish to have a total ontrol over its presen e in the ele troni market
pla e. The produ t details need to be, not in a entralised site along with other
insurers, but within their own systems environment, so that, for example, pre-
mium al ulation formulas, an remain ondential and insurers also an made
use of private data sour es. The market pla e therefore needs to be distributed
among the insurers. This is learly a more e ient use of resour es ompared
with requiring insurers to provide dupli ated information to a entralised server
used by a third party. It also enables the insurer to have omplete and dynami
ontrol over hanges to produ ts and pri es.

3 Existing Online Insuran e

Despite the in reasingly rapid advan es made in omputer te hnology, ompa-
nies in the insuran e industry are making the most use of the new te hni al
possibilities oered today in their internal operations only, while hardly employ-
ing them at all when negotiating with their ustomers. A re ent omparative
study of 25 web-based Internet sites oering omparative term life insuran e
information from Consumer Federation of Ameri a has showed us that not all
sites are useful for getting quotes. Some of them are too di ult to use and oth-
ers little more than referral servi es where you are put in tou h with an agent,
something you, most of the time, do not need the Internet to a hieve. Several of
the quote servi es do not in lude no ommission insuran e ompanies, be ause
many of this sites make money through ommissions on sales and do not show
this ompanies in their servi e be ause it would redu e their in omes [10℄.
Most web sites oering online quotation and pur hase of insuran e produ ts
are implemented by the insurers and sell dire tly to the ustomer, ex luding
the broker. Brokers, however, provide a valuable servi e and are widely used by
ustomers. Yet, online brokerage is rare.
Those sites, whi h do oer a brokerage servi e, do so by drasti ally simplifying
the problem: they standardise oered produ ts. The broker's role is then redu ed
to olle t a standard set of information from the ustomer and negotiate standard
overages. This gives no advantage for any of the players be ause:
 ustomers are provided with a more limited hoi e of produ ts, whi h may
not meet all their requirements
 insurers have limited exibility in produ t design, targeting and pri ing
 brokers lose their traditional role

4 Insuran e Brokerage
Insuran e brokerage is a pro ess involving three types of players:

4.1 Customers
The ustomer wishes to buy an insuran e to over ertain risks. This requirement
will usually be in omplete and un ertain and, possibly, the ustomer will not be
aware of all the options available and may be prepared to ompromise on ertain
aspe ts. The ustomer expe ts the broker to help and advise in dening his
needs, to sele t an insuran e produ t and to appropriately deal with insuran e
ompanies always taking ustomers' preferen es into onsideration.

4.2 Insurers
Ea h insuran e ompany oers a number of insuran e produ ts, overing dif-
ferent risks and aimed at dierent groups of ustomers. Ea h produ t is only
available to ustomers who satisfy a ompli ated set of rules, designed to min-
imise the risk of the insurer. The produ t is usually ongurable, allowing the
ustomer to sele t the amount of ea h type of over and a number of other dier-
ent optional extras. The premium harged by the insurer takes into a ount the
hara teristi s of the ustomer and the risk insured, as well as the onguration
of the produ t.

4.3 Broker
The broker mediates between ustomers and insurers, attempting to supply ea h
ustomer with a produ t appropriate to his needs at an a eptable pri e to both
parties. To a omplish this role, a broker needs to exe ute four dierent, although
related tasks:

 To gather and lter information about available produ ts

 To dis uss ustomers' requirements and provide adequate advi e
 To negotiate produ t details with insurers on behalf of the ustomer
 To establish the nal ontra t involving both the ustomer and the sele ted
insuran e produ t provider

5 Agent Mediated Insuran e Brokerage

5.1 Our Proposal
It is our belief that intelligent agents are well suited to deal with the insuran e
brokering problem in a distributed manner. By onguring a so iety of intelligent
agents, ea h one harged with autonomously arrying out dierent spe i fun -
tionalities, the insuran e broker system will not only be able to analyse produ ts
being oered, but will also dedu e useful information regarding the urrent state
of the market.
We here present a distributed, intelligent agent-based system making it pos-
sible the ele troni ommer e of insuran e produ ts. Our approa h for an agent-
based insuran e produ ts assisted ele troni market in ludes an agent represent-
ing ea h of the insurers, an agent representing the ustomer and a broker agent
for intelligent brokering servi es. Ea h insurer has full ownership of its agent, en-
suring that all strategi information remains ondential. The goal is to support
distribution of a full range of insuran e produ ts from several dierent insur-
ers without the need to modify or onstrain them in standard rigid formats for
ele troni ommer e purposes.
By in reasing the degree and the sophisti ation of the automation pro ess,
ommer e be omes mu h more dynami , personalised and ontext sensitive.
These hanges an be of benet of both ustomers and insurers. From the us-
tomers' perspe tive, it is desirable to have software that ould sear h all the
available oers to nd the most suitable one and that ould then go through the
pro ess of a tually pur hasing the produ t.
From the insurer's perspe tive it is desirable to have software that ould
vary its own oering depending on the ustomer it is dealing with, what its
ompetitors are doing and the urrent state of its own business.
In our system produ ts are des ribed as a ri h set of attributes, onstraints
and preferen es and ustomers an request for produ ts that meet their require-
ments by spe ifying their needs as a set of rules. The ustomer properties are
hara teristi s that des ribe the ustomer and his needs. The produ ts adver-
tised by insurers represent spe i ongurations of insuran e produ ts. Thus
one insuran e produ t, whi h by its nature ontains many possible ongura-
tions (e.g. levels of over, levels of dedu tible, optional overages, et ) an be
represented by many produ t advertisements. The business rules of ea h prod-
u t map that parti ular onguration to one ustomer prole, represented by
the ombined values of the ustomer properties. This business rules in lude un-
derwriting rules, ensuring that are not proposed produ ts to ustomers for whi h
they will be subsequently onsidered ineligible.
This approa h allows the insuran e ompany to target produ t ongurations
at spe i market segments, and avoids the need to ask all ustomers the same
typi ally large number of produ t spe i questions.
A Customer Agent oordinates the dialogue between the ustomer and the
Broker Agent, passing on information as appropriate. It oers the ustomer a
exible navigation tool that allows the exploration of the re eived proposals.
This is parti ularly useful be ause the ustomer wish to express produ t feature
preferen es and view the orresponding proximity of ea h oered produ t. The
result is a ranking of produ ts, whi h an be tuned by the ustomer by varying
the preferen es and viewing the onsequent ee t on the ranked list [18℄. Su h
a navigation tool en ourages the user to onsider non-pri e related features and
helps the ustomer to explore the trade-o between produ t features and pri e.
This is not just of benet to the ustomer, be ause insurers have also the means
of drawing attention to their produ ts' distinguishing features other than pri e
[8℄. This helps the ustomer to make an informed pur hase de ision.

5.2 Stages of the Brokering Problem

Figure 1 briey depi ts the overall ar hite ture in luding needed agents as well
as agent intera tion links in our agent-based insuran e brokering system. No-
ti e that, besides relevant servi es like negotiation proto ols and ontology-based
servi es, BA, the Broker Agent, provides a fa ility to build up, memorise and
 Broker Agent IA1
User communities
Stereotypes
CA IA2
Negotiation protocols

Ontology .
.
Customer .
IAn
LDAP

Fig. 1. Agent based ar hite ture for the Insuran e Brokering System

exploit User's Stereotypes. Although this on ept will be elaborated later on

se tion 5.2, the reader an see a stereotype as a lassi ation of a set of features
and hara teristi s asso iated with a spe i sub-set of ustomers.
Our model for the insuran e brokering a tivities divides the intera tion pro-
ess aiming at solving the problem into ve stages as follows:
In Stage 1, the user denes the allowed range for the insuran e produ t at-
tributes' values. This denition in ludes atta hing a degree of importan e (weight
value) for ea h one of the produ t's attributes (in a range from low to high ) and
the in reasing order of preferen e for the attributes' values.
Stage 2 , starts when the Customer Agent (CA), instru ted by the user,
sends a request to the Broker Agent (BA). This request is onstru ted by sele t-
ing the most important value for ea h one of the user-dened attributes. When
it is possible to obtain, a ording to the dened values, the dire tion in whi h
the user is willing to relax the value's onstraint, this dire tion is also sent in the
initial request. The purpose of all that information is helping the BA evaluate
the re eived proposals.
The BA replies with a stereotype to CA. Based on this re eived stereotype,
the user an rene its initial request. CA re-sends a, possibly improved, request
to BA. Now, BA also asks user's preferen es to CA.
In Stage 3, BA sends an announ ement to ea h Insurer Agent (IA), starting
a negotiation pro ess. Ea h IA replies with bids to BA, whi h are then evaluated
a ording to CA preferen es, extra ting relevant features from these bids. At ea h
negotiation round bids are evaluated, and the one with the greatest evaluation
value is onsidered the winner in urrent round.
When this negotiation pro ess ends, BA starts Stage 4, by starting a new
intera tion with CA. This intera tion will ultimately dire t the system to a
suitable solution through a onstraint satisfa tion pro ess.
If this onversation has produ ed a valid number of alternatives, BA initiates
Stage 5 by ranking sele ted proposals a ording to user utility fun tion results,
and send them plus relevant information to CA. The user either reje ts or agrees
with one of the re eived proposals.
If the user has sele ted one of the proposed insuran e produ ts, BA resumed
to Stage 6, establishing a ontra t with the winning IA.

6 Learning About User Communities and Stereotypes

6.1 User Communities
Ma hine learning methods have been applied to user modelling problems mainly
for a quiring models of individual users intera ting with a system, e.g. [1℄[2℄[15℄.
Re ently, other authors like [13℄ have approa hed this subje t in luding a higher
level of generalisation of the users' interests and leading to the identi ation of
dierent user ommunities in a population of users.
The hoi e of a learning method or algorithm largely depends on the kind
of training data that is available. The main distin tion in ma hine learning al-
gorithm paradigm is between supervised and unsupervised learning. Supervised
learning requires the training data to be pre lassied. This means that ea h ex-
ample is assigned a unique label, signifying the lass to whi h the item belongs.
Given these data, the learning algorithm builds a hara teristi des ription of
ea h lass, overing the examples of this lass. The important feature of this ap-
proa h is that the lass des riptions are built onditional to the pre lassi ation
of the examples in the training set. In ontrast, unsupervised learning methods
do not require pre lassi ation of the training examples. Through these latter
methods lusters of examples are built up, whi h share ommon hara teristi s.
When the ohesion of a luster is high, i.e, the examples des ribed in it are
similar, su h luster denes a new lass.
User ommunities an be automati ally onstru ted using an unsupervised
learning method. Unsupervised learning tasks have been approa hed by a vari-
ety of methods, raging from statisti al lustering te hniques to neural networks
and symboli ma hine learning. The bran h of symboli ma hine learning that
deals with this kind of unsupervised learning is alled on eptual lustering and
a popular representative of this approa h is the obweb algorithm [4℄. Con ep-
tual lustering is a type of learning by observation that is parti ularly suitable
for summarising and explaining data. Summarisation is a hieved through the
dis overy of appropriate lusters, whi h involve determining useful subsets of
an obje t set. In unsupervised learning ea h example is an obje t. Explanation
involves determining a useful on ept des ription for ea h luster.
 obweb is an in remental lustering algorithm that employs the on ept of
ategory utility [6℄ to reate a lustering that maximises inter- luster dissimilarity
and intra- luster similarity. The ategory utility of a partition is measured by
the following equation:

P  hP P PP i
P C i j P (Ai = Vij jCk ) P (Ai = Vij )2
2
k ( k )
CU = : (1)
k
where k is the number of ategories or lasses, Ck is a parti ular lass, Ai
refers to one of the I attributes and Vij is one of the J values for attribute Ai .
obweb performs its hill- limbing sear h of the spa e of possible taxonomies
and uses the expression above for ategory utility to evaluate and sele t possible
ategorisations. It initialises the taxonomy to a single ategory whose features
are those of the rst instan e. For ea h subsequent instan e, the algorithm begins
with the root ategory and moves through the tree. At ea h level it uses ategory
utility expression to evaluate the taxonomies resulting from the following four
steps algorithm:
1. Classifying the obje t with respe t to an existing lass
2. Creating a new lass
3. Combining two lasses into a single lass (merging)
4. Dividing a lass into several lasses (splitting)

6.2 Stereotypes of Customer's Communities

Our insuran e brokering system is then using obweb as a tool for grouping
potential ustomers in meaningful lasses we all stereotypes.
The lusters generated by obweb, should represent well-dened ustomer
ommunities. Besides the ustomer data used for in rementally build up us-
tomer's ommunities, a ustomer is hara terised by its own preferen es and by
the initial insuran e preferen es onguration hosen in the negotiation pro ess.
Thus, the natural way to dene meaningful stereotypes asso iated to ustomer's
ommunities is by trying to identify patterns that are representative of the par-
ti ipating users. We try to onstru t a prototypi al model for ea h ommunity,
whi h is representative of its users and signi antly dierent from other ommu-
nities of users.
In order to build appropriate stereotypes, our system is using a spe i metri
to measure the in rease in the frequen y of a spe i preferen e or negotiation
result within a given ommunity, as ompared to the default frequen y in the
whole number of available observations [14℄. In [13℄ and [5℄ the in rease in fre-
quen y was used as an indi ation of the in rease in the predi tability of the
feature (a given preferen e, for example) within the ommunity. Given a om-
ponent (a user preferen e), with the default frequen y f , if the frequen y of
this omponent within a ommunity i is fi , the frequen y in rease is dened as
a simple dieren e of the squares of the two frequen ies:
 F I = fi2 f 2 : (2)
When F I is negative there is a de rease in frequen y and the orresponding
omponent is not representative of the ommunity. A ommunity's representa-
tive hara teristi is found through F I > , where  is pre-established as the
required threshold for onsidering that frequen y in rease enough relevant.

7 Negotiation
7.1 Negotiation Proto ol
Resear h in automated negotiation topi s usually proposes various dierent
paradigms, like au tions [19℄, game theory [16℄and intelligent agent te hnology
[3℄. Au tion me hanisms are very popular due to its simpli ity and well pre-
dened rules, but generally they only involve single-issue negotiations. Game
theory me hanisms an only be applied in ontexts with perfe t information and
perfe t rationality. On the other hand, intelligent agents te hnology is a more
exible paradigm suitable for dynami and open environments, sin e agents an
ee tively ope with the omplexity and large amount of information. Intelligent
agents te hnology seems to be an appropriate paradigm to use in our ase, sin e
ele troni ommer e environments are both very dynami and omplex.
In order to rea h an agreement about a parti ular insuran e produ t, us-
tomers and brokers usually engage themselves in a sequential negotiation pro ess
omposed of multiple rounds for ex hanging proposals and ounter-proposals. A
negotiation proto ol should then be dened in order to sele t the parti ipants
in the ele troni market that, based on its apabilities and availability, will be
able to make the optimal deal a ording to its own goals.
Real negotiation in the insuran e domain implies taking into onsideration
not only one, but multiple attributes for dening the insuran e under dis ussion.
For instan e, although the poli y premium is an important attribute, the length
of the overage, the renewability and onvertibility of the poli y are omplemen-
tary issues to in lude in the de ision about whether to buy or not a spe i
insuran e produ t.
Atta hing utility values to dierent issues, helps to solve the problem of multi-
issue evaluation. However, in some ases, it an be a very di ult task to atta h
absolute values to issues' utilities. A more natural and realisti situation is to
simply impose a multi-issue evaluation based on a qualitative, not quantitative,
measure.
A learning apability is desired, in order to enable agents to make opti-
mal deals even when fa ed with in omplete information and when operating in
dynami environments, as it is the ase. This apability is in luded, in our ne-
gotiation proto ol, through a Reinfor ement Learning algorithm. Reinfor ement
learning algorithms support ontinuous, on-line learning during the negotiation
pro ess itself by making de isions a ording to the environment rea tions in the
past. The history of a negotiation is a ru ial information to be onsidered when
to de ide what to do in the next negotiation round. Q-Learning also in ludes
not only exploitation but also exploration fa ilities. In dynami environments or
in the presen e of in omplete information, exploration, i.e., trying out dierent
possibilities dierent from the obvious ones, be omes a powerful te hnique.
We also have adapted the Q-Negotiation algorithm [11℄[12℄ to the insuran e
brokering problem. This algorithm uses a reinfor ement learning strategy based
in Q-learning for the formulation of new proposals. The Q-learning algorithm is
a well-known reinfor ement learning algorithm that maps values (Q-values) to
state/a tion pairs.
The Q-Negotiation algorithm has the ability to maintain information private
to individual agents, and at the same time, in ludes the apability to evaluate
multi-attribute proposals, to learn how to make better proposals during the
negotiation pro ess and to resolve attributes' inter dependen ies.

7.2 Negotiating with Insurers

Generally, an evaluation of a re eived proposal is a linear ombination of the
attributes' values weighted by their orresponding importan es. In this way, a
multi-attribute negotiation is simply onverted in a single attribute negotiation,
on e there is a single result of the ombined evaluation.
The multi-attribute fun tion presented in the following formula en odes the
attributes' and attributes values' preferen es in a qualitative way and, at the
same time, a ommodates attributes intra-dependen ies.
1
Evaluation = : (3)
Deviation
n i
X
Deviation =
1
n
  dif (P refVi ; Vi ) : (4)
i=1 n
8 Vi PrefVi
< maxi mini if ontinuous domain :
dif (P refVi ; Vi ) = (5)
: Pos(Vi ) Pos(PrefVi )
nvalues if dis rete domain :
where n is the number of attributes that denes a spe i insuran e produ t
omponent.
A proposal's evaluation value is al ulated by the Broker Agent, as the in-
verse of the weighted sum of the dieren es between the optimal P refVi and
the proposed value Vi of ea h one of the attributes. The proposal with the high-
est evaluation value so far is the winner, sin e it is the one that ontains the
attributes' values more losely related to the preferred ones from the ustomer
point of view.
The fun tion dif (P refVi ; Vi ) quanties for an issue i, the degree of a ept-
ability of the urrent value Vi proposed by a spe i Insurer Agent when om-
pared to its preferable value P refVi .
 If the insuran e produ t omponent's values domain is of ontinuous values,
this quanti ation simply is a normalised dieren e between the two values Vi
and P refVi .
If the insuran e produ t omponent's values domain is of dis rete values, the
dieren e is now al ulated as a normalised dieren e between the preferen e
atta hed to Vi and P refVi . This dieren e an be al ulated onsidering the
relative position of the two values in the ontology's enumerated domain values
spe i ation.
The negotiation pro ess is onsidered as a set of rounds where Insurer Agents
on ede, from round to round, a little bit more trying to approa h the ustomer
preferen es, in order to be sele ted as the winning insuran e ompany. The win-
ner bid in the urrent round is sele ted as the one that presents the highest
evaluation value, sin e it is the solution that ontains attributes values the los-
est to the preferable ones. The winner bid in the urrent round is ompared
with the bid in all past rounds, and the best on is sele ted. The Broker Agent
helps Insurer Agents in their task of formulating new proposals by giving them
some hints about the dire tion they should follow in their negotiation spa e. The
Broker Agent gives this hints as omments about attributes' values in lude in
urrent proposals.
This qualitative feedba k ree ts the distan e between the values indi ated
in a spe i proposal and the best one re eived so far, and is formulated as a
qualitative omment on ea h of the proposal' attributes values, whi h an be
lassied in one of three ategories: su ient, bad or very_bad. The Broker
Agent ompares a parti ular proposal with, not its optimal, but the best one
re eived so far be ause its more onvin ing to say to an Insuran e Agent that
there is a better proposal in the market than saying that its proposal is not the
optimal one.
Insurer Agents will use this feedba k information about its past proposals,
in order to formulate, in the next negotiation rounds, new proposals trying to
follow the hints in luded in the feedba k omments.
The negotiation pro ess ends when:
 Broker Agent re eives a bid whi h has a satisfa tory evaluation value. This
is the winner bid.
 A deadline is rea hed. The winner bid is the one that presents the highest
evaluation value among all bids re eived until then.

7.3 Intera ting with the Customer Agent

When the negotiation pro ess ends it is possible that the re eived bids do not
satisfy all the onstrains imposed by the ustomer Agent. In that ase a on-
versation with ustomer Agent is initiated. This intera tion takes the form of
a sequen e of questions whose aim is to redu e alternatives rather than simply
sort them.
We use the s hemati format (performative sender_agent re eiver_agent
onversation_operator ontent ). The outermost performative, or message type,
represents the general lass of a message. In our system, we make use of the
lasses request, query and inform.
A ording to [9℄, we may view a request as having an asso iated level of om-
mitment. A request performative is tightly oupled with advan ing the task of
sele ting an insuran e produ t, as it always on ern onstraints. When a request
is made the Broker Agent is making a pre- ommitment to how the progress on
the sele tion of an insuran e produ t might be a omplished and it prompts the
Costumer Agent for information in order to do this. The Costumer Agent must
respond with an appropriate inform message.
A query performative is about ex hanging information. Its obje ts of dis-
ourse are the domain ontology and relevant information to the urrent state of
the intera tion. When a query is sent by the Costumer Agent, the Broker Agent
must respond with an inform followed by an appropriate onversation operator.
The rst operator available to the Broker Agent, CONSTRAIN-ATTRIBUTE,
involves asking the Customer Agent to provide a value for an attribute that does
not yet have one. In some ases, the pro ess of introdu ing a onstrain an pro-
du e a situation in whi h no insuran e produ ts are satisfa tory. When this
o urs, the Broker Agent applies RELAX-ATTRIBUTE, whi h asks whether
the user wants to drop a parti ular onstrain.
Another operator, SUGGEST-VALUES, informs the Customer Agent of pos-
sible values for an attribute. In this ase, the Broker Agent sends only the most
adequate options rather than all possible hoi es. A similar operator, SUGGEST-
ATTRIBUTES, informs the Customer Agent about the possible attributes for
an insuran e produ t.
On e the onversation has produ ed a valid number of alternatives, the Bro-
ker Agent invokes RECOMMEND-INSURANCE, an operator that proposes a
omplete insuran e produ t to the Customer Agent.

Table 1. Broker Agent Conversation Operators

Performative Conversation Operator Des ription

Request CONSTRAIN-ATTRIBUTE Asks a question to obtain a value
for an attribute
RELAX-ATTRIBUTE Asks a question to modify a value
for an attribute

Inform SUGGEST-VALUES Suggests a set of possible values

for an attribute
SUGGEST-ATTRIBUTES Suggests a set of un onstrained
attributes

RECOMMEND-INSURANCE Re ommends an insuran e produ t

that satises the onstrains
 Now let us dis uss the operators available to ustomer Agent. The a tion,
PROVIDE-CONSTRAIN, involves spe ifying the value of some attribute. This
an be a value for the attribute just asked by the Broker Agent, a value for
a dierent attribute, or a repla ement for a previously spe ied value. If the
proposed value for an attribute is found to be inappropriate by the ustomer
Agent or less relevant than some other fa tor, it an reje t the attribute or
even repla e it with another. The REJECT-SUGGESTION is used for expli it
reje tion.
In addition, the ustomer Agent an expli itly a ept or reje t other propos-
als that the Broker Agent makes, for relaxing a ertain attribute (ACCEPT-
RELAX or REJECT-RELAX), or for a omplete insuran e produ t (ACCEPT-
INSURANCE or REJECT-INSURANCE). The ustomer Agent an also query
the Broker Agent about available attributes (QUERY-ATTRIBUTES) or about
possible values of an attribute (QUERY-VALUES).

Table 2. Customer Agent Conversation Operators

Performative Conversation Operator Des ription

Inform PROVIDE-CONSTRAIN Provides a value for an attribute
REJECT-SUGGESTION Reje ts the proposed attribute
ACCEPT-RELAX A epts the new value of an attribute
REJECT-RELAX Reje ts the new value of an attribute
ACCEPT-INSURANCE A epts proposed insuran e produ t
REJECT-INSURANCE Reje ts proposed insuran e produ t

Query QUERY-ATTRIBUTES Asks broker for information about

possible attributes
QUERY-VALUES Asks broker for information about
possible values for an attribute

8 Knowledge Representation
Sharing ommon understanding of the stru ture of information among people
or software agents is one of the more useful and ommon goals in developing
ontologies [7℄. Adopting a ommon ontology guarantees information onsisten y
and ompatibility for a ommunity of agents. The information onsisten y is sat-
ised when ea h spe i expression has the same meaning for every agent in the
market. The information ompatibility is veried when any on ept is des ribed
by the same expression, for all the agents. This is why knowledge representation
be omes an important issue in the ontext of agent-based insuran e brokering
as well.
A lass is des ribed by a set of slots, and slots are des ribed by a set of
attributes, whi h are instantiated with values. The s hema we are using for
an ontology is then the knowledge representation s heme suitable for properly
identify lasses, slots, attributes and values, together with relationships that map
lasses to slots, slots to attributes and attributes to values. Su h ontology an
be represented by the following stru ture:

Ont = fClass; Slot; Attr; V al; CSr ; SAr ; AVr ; Depsg

where Class is the set of item's identiers, Slot is the set of omponent's
identiers, Attr is the set of attributes' identiers, V al is the set of attribute
values' identiers, ICr is a relationship that assigns to ea h lass in Class a set
of slots in Slot, AVr is a relationship that assigns to ea h attribute in Attr a
spe i value in V al and Deps is a set of relationships dening the dependen ies
between attributes' values.
Ea h value is represented by the tuple V ali = fT ype; Domaing where T ype =
finteger; real; stringg and Domain = f ontinuous; dis reteg.
Ea h relationship CSr is represented by Classi ! fSlotg; 8Classi 2 Class.
Ea h relationship SAr is represented by Sloti ! fAttrg; 8Sloti 2 Slot.
Ea h relationship AVr is represented by Attri ! V alk ; 8Attri 2 Attr; 91 V alk 2
V al.
Ea h dependen y in Deps is represented by Depij = f (V alki ; V almj ); 8Attri ; Attrj 2
Attr.

9 Con lusion
The system des ribed in this paper presents a new approa h to insuran e prod-
u ts brokering and has the potential to improve the quality of ustomer servi e
by ensuring that individual ustomer needs are ree ted in the produ ts oered.
Dierent ommunities of users an be identied and used to improve the
exploitation of an insuran e brokering servi e. The onstru tion of those om-
munities is a hieved using an unsupervised learning te hnique. We also use a
spe i metri to de ide whi h are the representative preferen es of a user's
ommunity. We also have adapted an advan ed negotiation proto ol, suitable
for multi-issue negotiation in ele troni ommer e a tivity. A learning apability
was also in luded enabling agents to be ome more ee tive in a dynami market
by learning with past experien e through the qualitative feedba k re eived from
their opponents. Our platform for automati insuran e brokering servi es is now
ready to be exploited for future experiments in several realisti s enarios.

Referen es
1. Marko Balabanovi and Yoav Shoham. Learning information retrieval agents:
Experiments with automated web browsing. In Pro eedings of the AAAI Spring
Symposium on Information Gathering from Heterogeneous, Distributed Resour es,
pages 1318, 1995.
2. P. Chiu. Using 4.5 as an indu tion engine for agent modelling: An experiment for
optimisation. In Pro eedings of the User Modelling Conferen e UM'97, 1997.
 3. Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Ni k Jennings. Negotiation: De ision fun -
tions for autonomous agents. International Journal of Roboti s and Autonomous
Systems, 24(3-4):159182, 1998.
4. D. H. Fisher. Knowledge a quisition via in remental on eptual lustering. Ma-
hine Learning, 2:139172, 1987.
5. J.B. Weinberg G. Biswas and D. Fisher. Iterate: A on eptual lustering algorithm
for data mining. IEEE Transa tions on Systems, Man and Cyberneti s, 28:100111,
1998.
6. M.A. Glu k and J.E. Corter. Information, un ertainty and the utility of ategories.
In Pro eedings of the 7th Conferen e of the Cognitive S ien e So iety, pages 283
287, 1985.
7. T.R. Gubber. A translation approa h to portable ontology spe i ations. Knowl-
edge A quisition, 5(2):199220, 1993.
8. R. Guttman, A. Moukas, and P. Maes. Agent-mediated ele troni ommer e: A
survey. Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(2):147159, 1998.
9. A. Haddadi. Communi ation and ooperation in agent systems: A pragmati the-
ory. Le ture Notes in Computer S ien e, 1056, 1996.
10. J. Robert Hunter and James H. Hunt. Term Life Insuran e on the Inter-
net: An Evaluation on On-line Quotes. Consumer Federation of Ameri a,
http:// onsumerfed.org/termlifeinsuran e.pdf, 2001.
11. Eugénio Oliveira and Ana Paula Ro ha. Agents advan ed features for negotiation
in ele troni ommer e and virtual organisations formation pro ess. Le ture Notes
in Computer S ien e, 1991:7796, 2001.
12. Eugénio Oliveira and Ana Paula Ro ha. Ele troni institutions as a framework for
agent's negotiation and mutual ommitment. Le ture Notes in Arti ial Intelli-
gen e, 2258:232245, 2001.
13. G. Paliouras, V. Karkaletsis, C. Papatheodorou, and C. Spyropoulos. Exploiting
learning te hniques for the a quisition of user stereotypes and ommunities. In
Pro eedings of the International Conferen e on User Modelling (UM '99)., 1999.
14. G. Paliouras, C. Papatheodorou, V. Kakaletsis, C. Spryropoulos, and V. Malaveta.
Learning user ommunities for improving the servi es of information providers.
Le ture Notes in Computer S ien e, 1513:367384, 1998.
15. B. Raskutti and A. Beitz. A quiring user preferen es for information ltering in
intera tive multimedia servi es. In Pro eedings of the Pa i Rim International
Conferen e on Arti ial Intelligen e, pages 4758, 1996.
16. Jerey Rosens hein and Gilad Zlotkin. Rules of En ounter. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1994.
17. Y. Honer S. Field. Vimp - a virtual market pla e for insuran e produ ts. EM -
Ele troni Markets, 8(4):37, 1998.
18. M. Stolze. Soft navigation in ele troni produ t atalogs. International Journal in
Digital Libraries, 3(1):6066, 2000.
19. Nir Vulkan and Ni k Jennings. E ient me hanisms for the supply of servi es in
multi-agent environments. In Pro eedings of the First International Conferen e on
Information and Computation E onomi s, Charleston, South Carolina, O tober
1998.