Learning to Negotiate Optimally in a Multi-agent Based Negotiation System for Web Service Selection

  • Raja BellakhalEmail author
  • Khaled Ghédira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 16)


Growing interest in the Web service based selection systems has given importance to the negotiation as it appears as a relevant tool to resolve discrepancy between negotiators, and to improve the selection process success rate. Better results may be obtained if agents are equipped with the real life negotiators’ capabilities of learning from past interactions. Proofs from observing the real human behaviors confirm that negotiators learning from interactions are more likely to get better offers. In this paper, we focus on the chicken game negotiation strategy. In such a game, a correlation between the first provider’s adopted strategy and the negotiation process success or failure exists. To model this correlation, we adopt the decision tree, a supervised learning technique in order to guide the clients’ choices of their best strategies. The experimental results show that including learning capability to the client’s behavior model leads to optimal results in terms of the client’s utility and the CPU time.


Web service Negotiation Chicken game Machine learning Decision tree Multi-agent-system 


  1. 1.
    Quinlan, R.: C4.5 programs for machine learning (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitchell, T.: Machine Learning. Computer Science Series. McGraw Hill, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, Y., Peng, Y., Finin, T., Labrou, Y., Cost, S., Chu, B., Yao, J., Sun, R., Wilhelm, B.: Negotiation-based multi-agent system for supply chain management. In: Proceedings of Agents 1999 Workshop Agent-Based Decision-Support for Managing Internet-Enabled Supply-Chain, Seattle, WA, pp. 15–20 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutknecht, O., Michel, F., Ferber, J.: The MADKIT Agent Platform Architecture (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alonso, E., D’Inverno, M., Kudenko, D., Luck, M., Noble, J.: Learning in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 16(3), 277–284 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tesauro, G.J., Kephart, J.: Pricing in agent economies using multi-agent Q-learning. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 5(3), 289–304 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ville Kônônen, J., Oja, E.: Asymmetric multiagent reinforcement learning in pricing applications. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN 2004), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 1097–1102 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Narayanan, V., Jennings, N.R.: Learning to negotiate optimally in non-stationary environments. In: CIA 2006. LNAI, vol. 4149, pp. 288–300 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ros, R., Sierra, C.: A negotiation meta strategy combining trade-off and concession moves. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 12(2), 163–181 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kotsiantis, S.: Supervised learning: a review of classification techniques. Informatica 31, 249–268 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, L.-J.: Web Services Research and Practices (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernández, J.E., Poler, R., Mula, J., de La Fuente, D.: A multiagent based-model for the collaborative planning process in decentralized supply chain networks. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ICAI 2009, vol. 2, Las Vegas Nevada, USA, 13–16 July 2009Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bacquet, C., Gumus, K., Tizer, D., Zincir-Heywood, A., Heywood, M.: A comparison of unsupervised learning techniques for encrypted traffic identification. J. Inf. Assur. Secur. 5, 464–472 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, S.K., Ho, T.K.: Intelligent negotiation behaviour model for an open railway access market. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(12), 8109–8118 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carbonneau, R.A., Kersten, G.E., Vahidov, R.M.: Pairwise issue modeling for negotiation counteroffer prediction using neural networks. Decis. Support Syst. 50(2), 449–459 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Domingos, P.: A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 55(10), 78–87 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zheng, X., Martin, P., Brohman, K.: Cloud service negotiation: concession vs. tradeoff approaches. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID), pp. 515–522. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radu, S., Florea, A.M.: Bargain strategies for agent automated negotiation in an e-business environment. Scalable Comput. Pract. Experience 15(2), 121–129 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bellakhal, R., Chainbi, W., Ghedira, K.: A web service selection approach based on hybrid negotiation. In: 4th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science (CLOSER 2014), Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 April 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManoubaManoubaTunisia
  2. 2.Higher Institute of BusinessUniversity of TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations