Alternating Offers Protocols for Multilateral Negotiation

  • Reyhan AydoğanEmail author
  • David Festen
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 674)


This paper presents a general framework for multilateral turn-taking protocols and two fully specified protocols namely Stacked Alternating Offers Protocol (SAOP) and Alternating Multiple Offers Protocol (AMOP). In SAOP, agents can make a bid, accept the most recent bid or walk way (i.e., end the negotiation without an agreement) when it is their turn. AMOP has two different phases: bidding and voting. The agents make their bid in the bidding phase and vote the underlying bids in the voting phase. Unlike SAOP, AMOP does not support walking away option. In both protocols, negotiation ends when the negotiating agents reach a joint agreement or some deadline criterion applies. The protocols have been evaluated empirically, showing that SAOP outperforms AMOP with the same type of conceder agents in a time-based deadline setting. SAOP was used in the ANAC 2015 competition for automated negotiating agents.


Multilateral negotiation Turn-taking negotiation protocol Alternating offers protocol 



This work was supported by the ITEA M2MGrids Project, grant number ITEA141011.


  1. 1.
    A multi-agent protocol for multilateral negotiations in supply chain management. Int. J. Product. Res. 48 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Aydoğan, K.V. Hindriks, C.M. Jonker, Multilateral mediated negotiation protocols with feedback, in Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation (2014), pp. 43–59Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Baarslag, K. Hindriks, C.M. Jonker, S. Kraus, R. Lin, The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010), in New Trends in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations, Series of Studies in Computational Intelligence, ed. by T. Ito, M. Zhang, V. Robu, S. Fatima, T. Matsuo (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. de Jonge, C. Sierra, Nb\(^{3}\): a multilateral negotiation algorithm for large, non-linear agreement spaces with limited time. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 29(5), 896–942 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. de la Hoz, M. Lopez-Carmona, M. Klein, I. Marsa-Maestre, Consensus policy based multi-agent negotiation, in Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice, volume 7047 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by D. Kinny, J.-J. Hsu, G. Governatori, A. Ghose (Springer, Berlin, 2011), pp. 159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U. Endriss, Monotonic concession protocols for multilateral negotiation, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Japan (2006), pp. 392–399Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Fatima, S. Kraus, M. Wooldridge, Principles of Automated Negotiation (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.S. Fatima, M. Wooldridge, N.R. Jennings, Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information, in Revised Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VIII, ATAL ’01, London, UK (Springer, Heidelberg, 2002), pp. 377–392Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Fujita, T. Ito, M. Klein, Preliminary result on secure protocols for multiple issue negotiation problems, in Proceedings of the Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents, PRIMA 2008, Hanoi, Vietnam, 15–16 December, 2008, (2008), pp. 161–172Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Hattori, M. Klein, T. Ito, A multi-phase protocol for negotiation with interdependent issues, in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Silicon Valley, CA, USA, 2–5 November, 2007 (2007), pp. 153–159Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Hemaissia, E. Seghrouchni, A., C. Labreuche, J. Mattioli, A multilateral multi-issue negotiation protocol, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Hawaii (2007), pp. 939–946Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Kameda, E. Altman, C. Touati, A. Legrand, Nash equilibrium based fairness. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 76(1), 43–65 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Klein, P. Faratin, H. Sayama, Y. Bar-Yam, Protocols for negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intell. Syst. 18, 32–38 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Kleinrock, Analysis of a time shared processor. Nav. Res. Logist. Quart. 11(1), 59–73 (1964)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Lin, S. Kraus, T. Baarslag, D. Tykhonov, K. Hindriks, C.M. Jonker, Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput. Intell. 30(1), 48–70 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best Out of Bargaining (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.R. Williams, V. Robu, E.H. Gerding, N.R. Jennings, Negotiating concurrently with unknown opponents in complex, real-time domains, in 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 242, August 2012, pp. 834–839Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Zheng, N. Chakraborty, T. Dai, K. Sycara, Multiagent negotiation on multiple issues with incomplete information: extended abstract, in Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS ’13 (2013), pp. 1279–1280Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Festen
    • 1
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Interactive Intelligence GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentÖzyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations