[COMP25] The Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC) 2025 Challenges and Results

Language Model (LM)-based agents remain largely untested in mixed-motive settings where agents must leverage short-term cooperation for long-term competitive goals (e.g., multi-party politics). We introduce Cooperate to Compete (C2C), a multi-agent environment where players can engage in private negotiations while competing to be the first to achieve their secret objective. Players have asymmetric objectives and negotiations are non-binding, allowing alliances to form and break as players' short-term interests align and diverge. We run AI only games and conduct a user study pitting human players against AI opponents. We identify significant differences between human and AI negotiation behaviors, finding that humans favor lower-complexity deals and are significantly less reliable partners compared to LM-based agents. We also find that humans are more aggressive negotiators, accepting deals without a counteroffer only 56.3% of the time compared to 67.6% for LM-based agents. Through targeted prompting inspired by these findings, we modify agents' negotiation behavior and improve win rates from 22.2% to 32.7%. We run over 1,100 games with over 16,000 private conversations totaling 15.2 million tokens and over 150,000 player actions. Our results establish C2C as a testbed for studying and building LM-based agents that can navigate the sophisticated coordination required for real-world deployments. The game, code, and dataset may be found at https://negotiationgame.io/c2c.

Agentic buyers can cheaply fork a procurement task into many parallel negotiations, but concurrency is not free: every thread consumes resources, and simultaneous agreements create cancellation and commitment risk. We study a one-unit post-order sourcing problem with a single hard-deadline negotiation window, in which a planner jointly chooses the number of seller-facing negotiators and a common procurement price cap. The model combines a product-specific acceptance curve with fulfillment loss, per-thread cost, and excess-commitment cost. We establish three structural results. First, holding the per-thread acceptance target fixed, the marginal value of another negotiator decays geometrically, yielding a conditional concurrency threshold. Second, under a convex quantile curve, parallelism substitutes for concession: more concurrent negotiators imply a weakly lower per-thread acceptance target and price cap. Third, when prices are more dispersed, Agentic buyers benefit by searching harder for bargains, but suffer when they instead try to guarantee procurement by offering higher prices. We operationalize these results in the Concurrency-Aware Negotiation Optimizer (CANO), a deterministic optimizer that jointly determines the optimal negotiation concurrency and procurement price cap for an agentic procurement system. Across different analytic market configurations and extensive Monte Carlo, finite-data, non-Gaussian, and correlated-seller stress tests, CANO consistently outperforms common heuristic policies while validating the predicted structural properties.

Negotiation is a central mechanism of economic exchange, shaping markets, procurement, labor agreements, and resource allocation. It is also a canonical testbed for agentic language models, requiring multi-turn interaction under hidden preferences, strategic communication, and binding constraints. These properties make negotiation hard to evaluate: unlike math or code, it has no intrinsic verifier. Existing LLM negotiation evaluations rely on LLM-vs.-LLM interaction or aggregate outcomes such as deal rate, leaving failures opaque. We introduce Terms-Bench, short for Testbed for Economic Reasoning in Multi-turn Strategy, a Bayesian-game framework that makes the environment itself the verifier by specifying the counterpart's latent type, policy, and payoff structure. We instantiate it in bilateral price negotiation, where the counterpart's private state and simulator policy are hidden from the agent but observable to the evaluator. This turns the counterpart from a black-box opponent into a diagnostic instrument, enabling agent-attributable failure analysis and oracle-reference optimality gaps. Evaluating 13 LLM agents spanning frontier systems from major providers, Terms-Bench turns negotiation evaluation from aggregate ranking into actionable diagnosis: where agents fail, why they fail, and what to strengthen. Empirically, frontier models saturate deal rate yet diverge in surplus extraction, cue use, belief calibration, and compliance, revealing agent-specific bargaining bottlenecks masked by prior benchmarks.