pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.08659 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-11 · 💻 cs.MA · cs.AI· cs.GT

Introduction to Automated Negotiation

Dave de Jonge This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA cs.AIcs.GT
keywords automated negotiationintroductory textbookPython frameworkmulti-agent systemscomputer science educationnegotiation algorithmshands-on learning
0
0 comments X

The pith

This introductory book teaches automated negotiation to beginners using a simple Python toy framework for implementing algorithms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The book targets computer science students with no prior knowledge of automated negotiation. It requires only elementary mathematics and basic programming skills as prerequisites. The text is paired with a compact toy-world negotiation framework written in Python so that readers can code their own algorithms and run experiments. The framework is deliberately small so it can be quickly re-implemented in any other language.

Core claim

The work supplies an accessible textbook that introduces the core ideas of automated negotiation together with a minimal, self-contained Python environment in which students can directly implement and test negotiation strategies.

What carries the argument

A simple toy-world negotiation framework implemented in Python that lets readers code and experiment with their own algorithms.

If this is right

  • Readers can immediately write and test custom negotiation algorithms inside the supplied environment.
  • The framework's limited size allows fast translation into other programming languages.
  • Students obtain direct experimental experience with multi-agent interaction without needing large codebases.
  • The material can be used as a self-contained module in introductory courses on multi-agent systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Adoption of this style of minimal teaching resource may shorten the time for new researchers to reach the point of contributing original negotiation algorithms.
  • The toy framework could be expanded in follow-on work to include more realistic constraints while retaining the same pedagogical structure.
  • Combining the framework with existing open-source multi-agent libraries might produce a complete beginner-to-advanced learning pathway.

Load-bearing premise

A minimal toy framework is enough for meaningful hands-on learning of negotiation concepts.

What would settle it

If students who complete the book and exercises cannot implement or explain basic negotiation strategies in a test setting, the claim that the material suffices for beginners would be refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08659 by Dave de Jonge.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: The alternating offers protocol as a finite-state machine. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Utility space diagram. Every dot is the utility vector of one offer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: Utility space diagram of a split-the-pie domain. Note that all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4: The individually rational offers are those for which their utility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_2_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.5. Figure 2.5: Example of domination. The offer ω lies to the top-right of ω ′ and we therefore say that ω dominates ω ′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_2_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: The offer ω is Pareto optimal because it is not dominated by any other offer. We can see this because the area that lies above the horizontal dashed line and to the right of the vertical dashed line is empty. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 rv2 rv1 Utility of Agent 1 Utility of Agent 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_2_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Pareto-frontier. All offers that are Pareto-optimal have been [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_2_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.8. Figure 2.8: Left: a domain with low opposition. Right: a domain with high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_2_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Aspiration functions with α = 1, β = 0, T = 1, and several different values for γ. approach may fail because our agent cannot propose all offers, and therefore risks failing to propose those offers that are acceptable to the opponent. 3.2.1.2 Choosing the Aspiration Function The aspiration function can be any monotonically decreasing function, but a good example would be the following: λ(t) = (α − β) · 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Negotiation between a conceding agent (ag1) and a hardheaded agent (ag2). Their aspiration levels are indicated with a vertical blue line and a horizontal blue line respectively. We see that the aspiration level of the conceding agent drops much further than the aspiration level of the hardheaded agent. The negotiations continue until they reach a point at which there is an offer that is acceptable to bo… view at source ↗
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: An example of a domain with low opposition. Here, the outcome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p073_3_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: The problem with ACnext. At t1 agent 1 proposes ω1, at t2 agent 1 proposes ω2, and at t3 agent 1 has the choice between proposing ω3 or accepting ωrec. According to ACnext, the agent should reject. However, this does not make sense, since he has already proposed ω2 which is actually worse than ωrec. of utility, or better. The same generalization can also be applied to ACasp or AClow. That is, we could de… view at source ↗
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: The benefit of reproposing. The red dots represent proposals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p085_3_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Some examples of triangular evaluation functions for an issue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p098_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Multi-variate Gaussian distributions. where Ki,j is an entry of the matrix K, representing the covariance between variables zi and zj , and ti and tj are the times of the proposals πi and πj . Of course, we have now only replaced our original question “How do we select the correct covariance matrix?” by a new question: “How do we select the correct kernel function?”. We will not go into the details of ho… view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Example of a tree corresponding to a set of tuples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p133_5_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: A game tree that visualizes a very simple 2-player turn-taking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p136_5_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This book is an introductory textbook targeted towards computer science students who are completely new to the topic of automated negotiation. It does not require any prerequisite knowledge, except for elementary mathematics and basic programming skills. This book comes with an simple toy-world negotiation framework implemented in Python that can be used by the readers to implement their own negotiation algorithms and perform experiments with them. This framework is small and simple enough that any reader who does not like to work in Python should be able to re-implement it very quickly in any other programming language of their choice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is an introductory textbook on automated negotiation for computer science students with no prior knowledge of the topic beyond elementary mathematics and basic programming skills. It supplies a minimal toy-world negotiation framework implemented in Python that readers can use to code their own negotiation algorithms and run experiments, with the explicit note that the framework is small enough to be re-implemented quickly in any other language.

Significance. If the explanations prove accurate and the framework is functional as described, the work could provide a useful entry-level resource in multi-agent systems by lowering the barrier to hands-on learning of negotiation concepts through a deliberately simple, language-agnostic toy implementation.

minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'This book comes with an simple toy-world' contains a grammatical error ('an' should be 'a').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for reviewing our manuscript and recommending minor revision. We appreciate the positive assessment that the work could serve as a useful entry-level resource for students in multi-agent systems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely expository textbook

full rationale

The work is an introductory textbook with no mathematical derivations, predictions, fitted parameters, or formal claims that could reduce to their own inputs. It supplies descriptive content and a minimal Python framework for hands-on exercises, without any load-bearing technical assertions, self-citations of uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes that require verification. The central framing is pedagogical and self-contained against external benchmarks, with no opportunity for the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As an introductory textbook the contribution is educational material and a minimal example framework rather than new theoretical constructs, fitted parameters, or postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5370 in / 996 out tokens · 35067 ms · 2026-05-17T23:32:12.983393+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bo An and Victor R. Lesser. Yushu: A heuristic-based agent for auto- mated negotiating competition. In Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Valentin Robu, Shaheen Fatima, and Tokuro Matsuo, editors,New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, volume 383 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 145–149. Springer, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211(4489):1390–1396, 1981

    R Axelrod and WD Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation.Science, 211(4489):1390–1396, 1981

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    Challenges and main results of the automated negotiating agents competition (anac) 2019

    Reyhan Aydogan, Tim Baarslag, Katsuhide Fujita, Johnathan Mell, Jonathan Gratch, Dave de Jonge, Yasser Mohammad, Shinji Nakadai, Satoshi Morinaga, Hirotaka Osawa, Claus Aranha, and Catholijn Jonker. Challenges and main results of the automated negotiating agents competition (anac) 2019. InMulti-Agent Systems and Agree- ment Technologies. 17th Internationa...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation.Mod- ern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation, pages 153–167, 2017

    Reyhan Aydo˘ gan, David Festen, Koen V Hindriks, and Catholijn M Jonker. Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation.Mod- ern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation, pages 153–167, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Hindriks, and Catholijn M

    Tim Baarslag, Mark Hendrikx, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. Predicting the performance of opponent models in automated negotiation. In2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2013, 17-20 November 2013, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pages 59–66. IEEE Computer Society, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Decoupling negotiating agents to explore 203 204BIBLIOGRAPHY the space of negotiation strategies

    Tim Baarslag, Koen Hindriks, Mark Hendrikx, Alexander Dirkzwa- ger, and Catholijn Jonker. Decoupling negotiating agents to explore 203 204BIBLIOGRAPHY the space of negotiation strategies. In Ivan Marsa-Maestre, Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona, Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Quan Bai, and Katsuhide Fujita, editors,Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Ne- g...

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Hindriks, and Catholijn M

    Tim Baarslag, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. Acceptance conditions in automated negotiation. In Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Valentin Robu, and Tokuro Matsuo, editors,Complex Automated Ne- gotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions, volume 435 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 95–111. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Hindriks, and Catholijn M

    Tim Baarslag, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. A tit for tat negotiation strategy for real-time bilateral negotiations. In Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Valentin Robu, and Tokuro Matsuo, editors,Com- plex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Com- petitions, volume 435 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 229–233. Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Hindriks, Catholijn M

    Tim Baarslag, Koen V. Hindriks, Catholijn M. Jonker, Sarit Kraus, and Raz Lin. The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). InNew Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, volume 383 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 113–135. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    RLBOA: A modular reinforcement learning framework for autonomous negotiating agents

    Jasper Bakker, Aron Hammond, Daan Bloembergen, and Tim Baarslag. RLBOA: A modular reinforcement learning framework for autonomous negotiating agents. In Edith Elkind, Manuela Veloso, Noa Agmon, and Matthew E. Taylor, editors,Proceedings of the 18th International Con- ference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’19, Montreal, QC, Canada, May...

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Bishop.Pattern recognition and machine learning, 5th Edition

    Christopher M. Bishop.Pattern recognition and machine learning, 5th Edition. Information science and statistics. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    An efficient and adaptive approach to negotiation in complex environments

    Siqi Chen and Gerhard Weiss. An efficient and adaptive approach to negotiation in complex environments. InECAI 2012 - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track, Montpellier, France, August 27-31 , 2012, volume 242 ofFrontiers in Artificial Inte...

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Notes on equilibria in symmetric games

    Shih-Fen Cheng, Daniel M Reeves, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, and Michael P Wellman. Notes on equilibria in symmetric games. In Simon Parsons and Piotr Gmytrasiewicz, editors,Proceedings of the 6th Inter- national Workshop On Game Theoretic And Decision Theoretic Agents GTDT, pages 71–78, 7 2004

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    An extension of the nash bargain- ing solution to nonconvex problems.Games and Economic behavior, 13(1):26–38, 1996

    John P Conley and Simon Wilkie. An extension of the nash bargain- ing solution to nonconvex problems.Games and Economic behavior, 13(1):26–38, 1996

    work page 1996

  15. [15]

    An analysis of the linear bilateral ANAC domains using the MiCRO benchmark strategy

    Dave de Jonge. An analysis of the linear bilateral ANAC domains using the MiCRO benchmark strategy. In Luc De Raedt, editor,Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 223–229. ijcai.org, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Theoretical properties of the MiCRO negotiation strat- egy.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 38(46), 2024

    Dave de Jonge. Theoretical properties of the MiCRO negotiation strat- egy.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 38(46), 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    The challenge of negotiation in the game of diplomacy

    Dave de Jonge, Tim Baarslag, Reyhan Aydo˘ gan, Catholijn Jonker, Kat- suhide Fujita, and Takayuki Ito. The challenge of negotiation in the game of diplomacy. In Marin Lujak, editor,Agreement Technologies, 6th International Conference, AT 2018, Bergen, Norway, December 6- 7, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, volume 11327 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, p...

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    A heuristic algorithm for multi-agent vehicle routing with automated negotiation

    Dave de Jonge, Filippo Bistaffa, and Jordi Levy. A heuristic algorithm for multi-agent vehicle routing with automated negotiation. In Frank Dignum, Alessio Lomuscio, Ulle Endriss, and Ann Now´ e, editors,AA- MAS ’21: 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Virtual Event, United Kingdom, May 3-7, 2021, pages 404–412. ACM, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Multi-objective vehicle routing with automated negotiation.Applied Intelligence, 52(14):16916–16939, Nov 2022

    Dave de Jonge, Filippo Bistaffa, and Jordi Levy. Multi-objective vehicle routing with automated negotiation.Applied Intelligence, 52(14):16916–16939, Nov 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    NB3: a multilateral negotiation al- gorithm for large, non-linear agreement spaces with limited time.Au- tonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(5):896–942, 2015

    Dave de Jonge and Carles Sierra. NB3: a multilateral negotiation al- gorithm for large, non-linear agreement spaces with limited time.Au- tonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(5):896–942, 2015. 206BIBLIOGRAPHY

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    D-Brane: a diplomacy playing agent for automated negotiations research.Applied Intelligence, 47(1):158– 177, 2017

    Dave de Jonge and Carles Sierra. D-Brane: a diplomacy playing agent for automated negotiations research.Applied Intelligence, 47(1):158– 177, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    OpenIntro Boston, MA, USA, 2012

    David M Diez, Christopher D Barr, and Mine Cetinkaya-Rundel.Open- Intro statistics, volume 4. OpenIntro Boston, MA, USA, 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Monotonic concession protocols for multilateral negoti- ation

    Ulle Endriss. Monotonic concession protocols for multilateral negoti- ation. In Hideyuki Nakashima, Michael P. Wellman, Gerhard Weiss, and Peter Stone, editors,5th International Joint Conference on Au- tonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, May 8-12, 2006, pages 392–399. ACM, 2006

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    Jennings

    Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nicholas R. Jennings. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents.Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3-4):159 – 182, 1998. Multi-Agent Rationality

    work page 1998

  25. [25]

    New York, WW Norton, 2007

    David Freedman, Robert Pisani, and Roger Purves.Statistics, 4th ´ ed. New York, WW Norton, 2007

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    The sixth automated negotiating agents competition (anac 2015)

    Katsuhide Fujita, Reyhan Aydo˘ gan, Tim Baarslag, Koen Hindriks, Takayuki Ito, and Catholijn Jonker. The sixth automated negotiating agents competition (anac 2015). InModern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, pages 139–151. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Katsuhide Fujita, Reyhan Aydogan, Tim Baarslag, Takayuki Ito, and Catholijn M. Jonker. The fifth automated negotiating agents com- petition (ANAC 2014). InRecent Advances in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation [revised and extended papers from the 7th In- ternational Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, ACAN 2014, Paris, France, Ma...

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    The nash program: non-convex bargaining prob- lems.Journal of Economic Theory, 49(2):266–277, 1989

    Maria Jose Herrero. The nash program: non-convex bargaining prob- lems.Journal of Economic Theory, 49(2):266–277, 1989

    work page 1989

  29. [29]

    Hindriks and Dmytro Tykhonov

    Koen V. Hindriks and Dmytro Tykhonov. Opponent modelling in auto- mated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In Lin Padgham, David C. Parkes, J¨ org P. M¨ uller, and Simon Parsons, editors,7th In- ternational Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent BIBLIOGRAPHY207 Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, May 12-16, 2008, Volume 1,...

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    A multi-issue nego- tiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions.Multia- gent Grid Syst., 4:67–83, January 2008

    Takayuki Ito, Mark Klein, and Hiromitsu Hattori. A multi-issue nego- tiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions.Multia- gent Grid Syst., 4:67–83, January 2008

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Other solutions to nash’s bargaining problem.”Econometrica”, ”43”(3):513–518, 1975

    Ehud Kalai and Meir Smorodinsky. Other solutions to nash’s bargaining problem.”Econometrica”, ”43”(3):513–518, 1975

    work page 1975

  32. [32]

    Compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotia- tion agents competition (ANAC-10)

    Shogo Kawaguchi, Katsuhide Fujita, and Takayuki Ito. Compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotia- tion agents competition (ANAC-10). InModern Approaches in Applied Intelligence - 24th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA/AIE 2011, Syracuse, NY, USA,...

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    C. E. Lemke and J. T. Howson, Jr. Equilibrium points of bimatrix games.Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 12(2):413–423, 1964

    work page 1964

  34. [34]

    Raz Lin, Sarit Kraus, Tim Baarslag, Dmytro Tykhonov, Koen Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. Genius: An integrated environment for sup- porting the design of generic automated negotiators.Computational Intelligence, 30(1):48–70, 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Lopez-Carmona, Juan R

    Ivan Marsa-Maestre, Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona, Juan R. Velasco, and Enrique de la Hoz. Effective bidding and deal identification for nego- tiations in highly nonlinear scenarios. InProceedings of The 8th Inter- national Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2, AAMAS ’09, pages 1057–1064, Richland, SC, 2009. Interna- tional Foundati...

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Johnathan Mell, Jonathan Gratch, Tim Baarslag, Reyhan Aydogan, and Catholijn M. Jonker. Results of the first annual human-agent league of the automated negotiating agents competition. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, IVA 2018, Sydney, NSW, Australia, November 05-08, 2018, pages 23–28, New York, NY, USA, 201...

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Sup- ply chain management world - A benchmark environment for situated negotiations

    Yasser Mohammad, Enrique Areyan Viqueira, Nahum Alvarez Ay- erza, Amy Greenwald, Shinji Nakadai, and Satoshi Morinaga. Sup- ply chain management world - A benchmark environment for situated negotiations. In Matteo Baldoni, Mehdi Dastani, Beishui Liao, Yuko Sakurai, and Rym Zalila-Wenkstern, editors,PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent System...

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Negmas: A platform for automated negotiations

    Yasser Mohammad, Shinji Nakadai, and Amy Greenwald. Negmas: A platform for automated negotiations. In Takahiro Uchiya, Quan Bai, and Ivan Mars´ a-Maestre, editors,PRIMA 2020: Principles and Prac- tice of Multi-Agent Systems - 23rd International Conference, Nagoya, Japan, November 18-20, 2020, Proceedings, volume 12568 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, ...

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    J.F. Nash. The bargaining problem.”Econometrica”, ”18”:155–162, 1950

    work page 1950

  40. [40]

    Jennings

    Thuc Duong Nguyen and Nicholas R. Jennings. Coordinating multi- ple concurrent negotiations. In3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), 19-23 August 2004, New York, NY, USA, pages 1064–1071. IEEE Computer Society, 2004

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    MIT press, 1994

    Martin J Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein.A course in game theory. MIT press, 1994

    work page 1994

  42. [42]

    Analysis of learning agents in automated negotiation

    Bram Renting, Dave de Jonge, Holger Hoos, and Catholijn Jonker. Analysis of learning agents in automated negotiation. Under review

    work page

  43. [43]

    J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin.Rules of Encounter. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1994

    work page 1994

  44. [44]

    Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model.Econo- metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 97–109, 1982

    Ariel Rubinstein. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model.Econo- metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 97–109, 1982

    work page 1982

  45. [45]

    Rahul Savani and Theodore L. Turocy. Gambit: The package for com- putation in game theory, 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    An au- tonomous negotiating agent framework with reinforcement learning based strategies and adaptive strategy switching mechanism

    Ayan Sengupta, Yasser Mohammad, and Shinji Nakadai. An au- tonomous negotiating agent framework with reinforcement learning based strategies and adaptive strategy switching mechanism. In Frank BIBLIOGRAPHY209 Dignum, Alessio Lomuscio, Ulle Endriss, and Ann Now´ e, editors,AA- MAS ’21: 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Syste...

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Agent smith: Opponent model estimation in bi- lateral multi-issue negotiation

    Niels van Galen Last. Agent smith: Opponent model estimation in bi- lateral multi-issue negotiation. In Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Valentin Robu, Shaheen Fatima, and Tokuro Matsuo, editors,New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, volume 383 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 167–174. Springer, 2012

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Wellman, Karl Tuyls, and Amy Greenwald

    Michael P. Wellman, Karl Tuyls, and Amy Greenwald. Empirical game theoretic analysis: A survey.J. Artif. Intell. Res., 82:1017–1076, 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    Christopher KI Williams and Carl Edward Rasmussen.Gaussian pro- cesses for machine learning, volume 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    work page 2006

  50. [50]

    Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H

    Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nicholas R. Jennings. Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In Toby Walsh, editor,IJ- CAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 16-22, 2011, pages 432–438...

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H

    Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nicholas R. Jennings. Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. InIJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 16-22, 2011, pages 432–438, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, 2011. IJCAI

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H

    Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nicholas R. Jennings. Iamhaggler: A negotiation agent for complex environments. InNew Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, vol- ume 383 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, pages 151–158. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H

    Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nicholas R. Jennings. An overview of the results and insights from the third au- tomated negotiating agents competition (ANAC2012). In Ivan Mars´ a- Maestre, Miguel A. L´ opez-Carmona, Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Quan 210BIBLIOGRAPHY Bai, and Katsuhide Fujita, editors,Novel Insights in Agent-based C...

    work page 2014