The Sixth Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2015)

  • Katsuhide FujitaEmail author
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
  • Tim Baarslag
  • Koen Hindriks
  • Takayuki Ito
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 674)


In May 2015, we organized the Sixth International Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2015) in conjunction with AAMAS 2015. 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 multi-issue negotiations, and to encourage the design of generic negotiating agents that are able to operate in a variety of scenarios. 24 teams from 9 different institutes competed in ANAC 2015. 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.


Discount Factor Individual Utility Preference Profile Negotiation Protocol Final Round 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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 2015 competition.


  1. 1.
    T. Baarslag, K. Fujita, E.H. Gerding, K.V. Hindriks, T. Ito, N.R. Jennings, C.M. Jonker, S. Kraus, R. Lin, V. Robu, C.R. Williams, Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artif. Intell. 198, 73–103 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Baarslag, K.V. 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 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 113–135Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Fujita, T. Ito, T. Baarslag, K.V. Hindriks, C.M. Jonker, S. Kraus, R. Lin, The second automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC2011), in Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions (Springer, Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 183–197Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Fukuta, T. Ito, M. Zhang, K. Fujita, V. Robu, The fifth automated negotiation competition, in Recent Advances in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiation (Springer, Switzerland, 2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y.K. Gal, L. Ilany, The fourth automated negotiation competition, in Next Frontier in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiation (Springer, Japan, 2015), pp. 129–136Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Lin, S. Kraus, T. Baarslag, D. Tykhonov, K.V. 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
  7. 7.
    R.D. McKelvey, T.R. Palfrey, An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica 60(4), 803–36 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Osborne, A. Rubinstein, in Bargaining and Markets, Economic Theory, Econometrics, and Mathematical Economics (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.J. Osborne, A. Rubinstein, in A Course in Game Theory, MIT Press Books (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.R. Williams, V. Robu, E.H. Gerding, N.R. Jennings, An overview of the results and insights from the third automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC2012), in Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation (Springer, Japan, 2014), pp. 151–162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuhide Fujita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 2
  • Tim Baarslag
    • 3
  • Koen Hindriks
    • 5
  • 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 groupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.Techno-Business Administration (MTBA)Nagoya Institute of TechnologyAichiJapan
  5. 5.Man Machine Interaction GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations