The Fifth Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2014)

  • Katsuhide FujitaEmail author
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
  • Tim Baarslag
  • Takayuki Ito
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 638)


In May 2014, we organized the Fifth International Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2014) in conjunction with AAMAS 2014. ANAC is an international competition that challenges researchers to develop a successful automated negotiator for scenarios where there is incomplete information about the opponent. One of the goals of this competition is to help steer the research in the area of bilateral multi-issue negotiations, and to encourage the design of generic negotiating agents that are able to operate in a variety of scenarios. 21 teams from 13 different institutes competed in ANAC 2014. This chapter describes the participating agents and the setup of the tournament, including the different negotiation scenarios that were used in the competition. We report on the results of the qualifying and final round of the tournament.



The authors would like to thank the team of masters students at Nagoya Institute of Technology, Japan for their valuable help in the organization of the ANAC 2014 competition.


  1. 1.
    Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E.H., Hindriks, K.V., Ito, T., Jennings, N.R., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Robu, V., Williams, C.R.: Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artif. Intell. 198, 73–103 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In: New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, pp. 113–135. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujita, K., Ito, T., Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The second automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2011). In: Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions, pp. 183–197. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gal, Y.K., Ilany, L.: The fourth automated negotiation competition. In: Next Frontier in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiation, pp. 129–136. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ito, T., Klein, M., Hattori, H.: A multi-issue negotiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions. Multiagent Grid Syst. 4(1), 67–83 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kraus, S.: Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput. Intell. 30(1), 48–70 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKelvey, R.D., Palfrey, T.R.: An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica 60(4), 803–36 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osborne, M., Rubinstein, A.: Bargaining and Markets. Economic Theory, Econometrics, and Mathematical Economics. Academic Press (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press Books. The MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: An overview of the results and insights from the third automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2012). In: Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, pp. 151–162. Springer (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuhide Fujita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 2
  • Tim Baarslag
    • 3
  • Takayuki Ito
    • 4
  • Catholijn Jonker
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringTokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentÖzyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Agents, Interaction and Complexity Group at the University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.Techno-Business Administration (MTBA)Nagoya Institute of TechnologAichiJapan
  5. 5.Man Machine Interaction GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations