A Machine Learning Approach for Mechanism Selection in Complex Negotiations

  • Reyhan AydoğanEmail author
  • Ivan Marsa-Maestre
  • Mark Klein
  • Catholijn M. Jonker


Automated negotiation mechanisms can be helpful in contexts where users want to reach mutually satisfactory agreements about issues of shared interest, especially for complex problems with many interdependent issues. A variety of automated negotiation mechanisms have been proposed in the literature. The effectiveness of those mechanisms, however, may depend on the characteristics of the underlying negotiation problem (e.g. on the complexity of participant’s utility functions, as well as the degree of conflict between participants). While one mechanism may be a good choice for a negotiation problem, it may be a poor choice for another. In this paper, we pursue the problem of selecting the most effective negotiation mechanism given a particular problem by (1) defining a set of scenario metrics to capture the relevant features of negotiation problems, (2) evaluating the performance of a range of negotiation mechanisms on a diverse test suite of negotiation scenarios, (3) applying machine learning techniques to identify which mechanisms work best with which scenarios, and (4) demonstrating that using these classification rules for mechanism selection enables significantly better negotiation performance than any single mechanism alone.


Automated negotiation mechanism selection scenario metrics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by the ITEA M2MGrids Project, grant number ITEA141011, and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness grants TIN2016-80622-P (AEI/FEDER, UE) and TIN2014-61627-EXP. Many thanks to Mehmet Gönen for his support on machine learning techniques.


  1. [1]
    Aydoğan, R., Festen, D., Hindriks, K. & Jonker, C. M. (2017). Alternating offers protocol for multilateral negotiation. In K. Fujita, Q. Bai, T. Ito, M. Zhang, F. Ren, R. Aydoğan, & R. Hadfi (eds), Modern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, pp. 153–167, Springer.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Alpaydin, E. (2009). Introduction to Machine Learning. MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Aydoğan, R., Hindriks, K. & Jonker, C. (2014). Multilateral mediated negotiation protocols with feedback. In I. Marsa-Maestre, M. A. Lopez-Carmona, T. Ito, M. Zhang, Q. Bai, & K. Fujita (eds), Novel Insights in Agent based Complex Automated Negotiation, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 43–59, Springer.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bai, Q., Zhang, M. & Sim, K. M. (2009). Flexible negotiation modelling by using coloured Petri Nets. Journal of Information Technology Research, 2(3): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Chen, S., Ammar, H., Tuyls, K. & Weiss, G. (2012). Transfer learning for bilateral multi-issue negotiation, In Proceedings of the 24th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), pp. 59–66, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Endriss, U. (2006). Monotonic concession protocols for multilateral negotiation, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 392–399, Japan, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Fujita, K., Ito, T., & Klein, M. (2012). A secure and fair protocol that addresses weaknesses of the Nash bargaining solution in nonlinear negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(1): 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Guerri, A. & Milano, M. (2004). Learning techniques for automatic algorithm portfolio selection, In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 475–479, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ilany, L. & Gal, Y. (2016). Algorithm selection in bilateral negotiation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(4): 697–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ito, T. & Klein, M. (2009). A consensus optimization mechanism among agents based on genetic algorithm for multi-issue negotiation problems, In Proceedings of Joint Agent Workshops and Symposium (JAWS), pp. 286–293, 2009.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ito, T., Hattori, H. & Klein, M. (2007). Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1347–1352, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2): 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Jonge, D. d. & Sierra, C. (2015). Nb3: A multilateral negotiation algorithm for large, nonlinear agreement spaces with limited time. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(5): 896–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Jonker, C. M., Aydogan, R., Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Ito, T. & Hindiks, K. (2017). Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC), In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17), pp. 5070–5072, 2017.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    K., V. V., Fogarty, T. C. & Miller, J. F. (2003). Smoothness, ruggedness and neutrality of fitness landscapes: from theory to application. In Advances in Evolutionary Computing: 3–44, Springer.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kersten, G. E. & Lai, H. (2007). Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: an overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(6): 553–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H. & Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Protocols for negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18: 32–38.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kraus, S. (2001). Strategic Negotiation in Multi-Agent Environments. Cambridge. The MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lai, G. & Sycara, K. (2009). A generic framework for automated multi-attribute negotiation. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(2): 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Lang, F. & Fink, A. (2015). Learning from the metaheuristics: protocols for automated negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(2): 299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Leo Breiman, J. F. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Taylor & Francis.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Leyton-Brown, K., Nudelman, E. & Shoham, Y. (2002). Learning the empirical hardness of optimization problems: The case of combinatorial auctions. International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming: 556–572, Springer.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Leyton-Brown, K., Nudelman, E., Andrew, G., McFadden, J. & Shoham, Y. (2003). A portfolio approach to algorithm select, In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, pp. 1542–1543. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lin, R. (2004). Bilateral multi-issue contract negotiation for task redistribtion using a mediation service, In Proceedings of Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce VI.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K. & Jonker, C. M. (2014). Genius: An integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Computational Intelligence, 30(1): 48–70.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M., de la Hoz, E. & Lopez-Carmona, M. A. (2011). Negowiki: A set of community tools for the consistent comparison of negotiation approaches, In Proceedings of International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems 2011: 424–435, Springer.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M., Jonker, C. M.& Aydogan, R. (2014). From problems to protocols: towards a negotiation handbook. Decision Support Systems, 60(1):39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M. A., Klein, M., Ito, T. & Fujita, K. (2012). Addressing utility space complexity in negotiations involving highly-uncorrelated, constraint-based utility spaces. Computational Intelligence, 30(1):1–29.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Peyman, F., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3): 159–182.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Ren, F., & Zhang, M. (2014). A single issue negotiation model for agents bargaining in dynamic electronic markets. Decision Support Systems, 60: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1): 97–109.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Sanchez-Anguix, V., Aydoğan, R., Julian, V., Garcia-Fornes, A. & Jonker, C. M. (2014). Unanimously acceptable agreements for negotiation teams in unpredictable domains. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(4): 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Tomassini, M., Vanneschi, L., Collard, P. & Clergue, M. (2005). A study of fitness distance correlation as a difficulty measure in genetic programming. Evolutionary Computation, 13(2): 213–239.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Williams, C. R. R. V., Gerding, E. H. & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Negotiating concurrently with unknown opponents in complex, real-time domains. Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 834–839.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Williams, C. R., Robu, V., Gerding, E. H. & Jennings, N. R. (2011). Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents, In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 432–438, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Wong, T. & Fang, F. (2010). A multi-agent protocol for multilateral negotiations in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 48(1): 271–299.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ivan Marsa-Maestre
    • 3
  • Mark Klein
    • 4
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceÖzyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Interactive Intelligence GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringUniversity of AlcalaAlcala de Henares, MadridSpain
  4. 4.Interactive Center for Collective IntelligenceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations