Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36 (2019) 2311–2322 2311

DOI:10.3233/JIFS-169942
IOS Press

Adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavioral learning

strategy for effective decision making
in the fuzzy-based cloud service
negotiation framework
Rajkumar Rajavela,∗ , Kanagachidambaresan Iyera , R. Maheswarb , P. Jayarajanb
and R. Udaiyakumarb
a Department of CSE, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, India
b Department of ECE, Sri Krishna College of Technology, India

Abstract. Future cloud computing creates a new trend of opting service over the internet through some intelligent third-party
broker. In cloud market, both consumer and provider compete with each other against the conflicting requirements, and the
competition among cloud providers to trade their services to potential consumers of cloud market. There is an increasing need
for automated negotiation framework to quickly reach agreement in competitive cloud market which can provide maximum
utility value and success rate among the negotiating parties. Researchers develop various behavioral learning negotiation
strategies (such as market driven) in the existing negotiation frameworks for maximizing either the choice of utility value or
success rate of parties. Moreover these strategies can be applicable to the environment, where the opponent’s behaviors are
predictable or precisely known. It may be daunting to apply in the dynamically varying competitive cloud market. So, the
proposed Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Behavioral Learning (ANFBL) strategy can be applicable, where the opponent’s behavior is
partially and imprecisely known. Therefore, the proposed strategy can maximize both utility value and success rate without
compromising either choice. An extensive simulation is conducted to evaluate the efficiency of strategies which shows that
proposed strategy achieve higher utility and higher success rate than existing learning approach, without any negotiation
conflict among the parties.

Keywords: Cloud computing, automated negotiation framework, fuzzy behavioral learning, adaptive neuro-fuzzy

1. Introduction consumers, which can brings the similar comfort

In this decade, cloud computing is being used
in different application domains such as indus-
try, government, and science [1]. The major vision
of cloud computing is to offers huge computing
power and information technology service delivery to
∗ Corresponding author. Rajkumar Rajavel, Department of
CSE, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of Sci-
ence and Technology, India. E-mail: rajkumarprt@gmail.com.
of traditional utilities like electricity, water, and
gas [2]. In recent years, cloud computing technol-
ogy has become an essential part of the enterprise
information technology business for its on-demand
self service provisioning and metering of services.
It offers high computing resource availability and
throughput for the services after confirming the SLA
agreement between the participants (consumer and
service provider) [3]. The SLA is a contract made
between the participants to promise the Quality of

ISSN 1064-1246/19/$35.00 © 2019 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
2312 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
Service as goals for the vision of cloud comput-
ing [4]. The Quality of Service goals and economic
conditions such as pricing and violation terms to be
established are clearly stated in the SLA. This SLA is
classified into static (provider predefined) SLA and
dynamic (negotiated) SLA [5]. In the former case, a
generic model of the SLA template is provided to all
the consumers. In the latter case, the consumer and
provider undergo a series of negotiation processes
between them to accomplish a mutually agreed SLA
template.
In general, cloud providers like Amazon EC2,
and Microsoft Azure define a general SLA doc-
ument for all consumers that assure to guarantee
99.9% service availability. This type of static SLA is
automatically recognized as soon as consumer con-
firms the service request through online credit card
payment. The provisioning of services through the
static SLA is a semi-customized service provisioning
mechanism which is in-compliance due to prede-
fined non-functional properties of Quality of Service
goals specified by the providers. Current cloud man-
agement systems provide a traditional SLA-based
service provisioning and metering mechanism [6,
7]. SLA refers to an agreement containing set of
functional and non-functional properties of the ser-
vice mutually agreed between the service consumer
and the service provider [8]. Only semi-customized
service provisioning with static SLA is available in
today’s cloud management system. Forecasts indicate
that a consumer with specialized Quality of Service
requirements may not be satisfied by the provider for
maximizing their revenue. In addition, the provider
cannot provide differentiated service provisioning to
consumers with specialized quality expectations.
To satisfy such future demands, an SLA-oriented
cloud management system mechanism is proposed
in the previous research work [9]. It highlights the
demand of negotiation framework establishment in
the service layer of cloud (available on top of appli-
cation layer). In futuristic cloud computing vision, the
negotiation framework is addressed as an imperative
architectural component of SLA-oriented resource
management [10, 11]. This scenario motivates the
research work towards the development of negoti-
ation framework which can satisfy the customized
cloud service provisioning mechanism. In addition,
the cloud technology accomplishes the service dis-
covery, scaling, monitoring, and decommissioning
operations in dynamic manner, there is a demand
for automated cloud service negotiation between con-
sumer and provider [12].
This cloud-based resource provisioning will
dynamically configure the virtual machine, which is
in need of an SLA negotiation between the service
consumer and service provider, using an intermedi-
ate third party broker. The cloud agency can act as a
broker for maintaining dynamic provisioning, mon-
itoring, and reconfiguration of the cloud resources
on behalf of the user [13]. Since, the cloud service
negotiation participants such as service consumer,
broker, and service provider are independent bodies
with different requirements, policies, and objec-
tives; there is a need for a negotiation framework
among the participants to resolve their differences
[14]. In a real-time e-commerce negotiation problem,
the broker-based negotiation framework using other
computing paradigms, like the grid and cluster, was
restricted to resource constraints due to its negotia-
tion complexity [15, 16]. Therefore, to overcome the
resource constraint, a negotiation framework needs to
be presented over the cloud environment, due to its
elastic scaling of resources. Negotiation framework
is the composition of various automated compo-
nents like negotiation strategy, negotiation protocol,
automated agent based communication among the
negotiating parties as defined in the next section.
2. Introduction
In this decade, cloud computing is being used in
different application domains such as industry, gov-
ernment, and science [1].
2.1. Negotiation framework
Initially, the negotiation concept was used for
reserving bandwidth in the SLA-oriented provi-
sioning architecture for making it a Quality of
Service-aware internet [17]. Later, end-to-end Qual-
ity of Service contract negotiation was introduced
among network service providers using the dis-
tributed reinforcement [18] and Q-learning algorithm
for their long-term benefits. The Cloud Comput-
ing Background Key Exchange [19] and HiTrust
negotiation model is proposed to provide a secure
scheduling and trust relationship among the dis-
tributed service, respectively. In the communication
perspective, the negotiation framework can be clas-
sified into direct (straight forward) negotiation and
indirect (intermediate third party) negotiation. The
direct type is preferred for single market (simple)
negotiation with two parties (service consumer and
 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
service provider), whereas an indirect model is used
for multiple inter-related market (complex) negoti-
ation with three parties (service consumer, broker,
and service provider) [20]. In direct negotiation, there
is a point-to-point negotiation process between the
service provider and service consumer. In case of
indirect negotiation, a third-party is used for the nego-
tiation process via a single or more than one trusted
third-party broker.
2.2. Negotiation strategy
The negotiation strategy describes the negotiation
process among participants using a standard commu-
nication protocol and the operational behavior of the
offer or counter-offer generated by the participant’s
algorithm at the negotiating end. A process of offer
or counter offer generation, selection, and evalua-
tion algorithm constitutes the negotiation strategy of
the participants [21]. The participants may attempt
to generate attractive offers in order to influence
their respective counterpart by providing a dynamic
concession in offers without receiving a concession
in counter offers. Most research work follows the
trade-off and concession-making algorithm for the
negotiation strategy [22, 23]. A novel time con-
strained SLA negotiation strategy is proposed to cope
up with the limited time duration of the negotiation
session [24]. In the negotiation strategy, concession
is given using the time, opportunity, and competition
function. Here, the time function follows the con-
servative, conciliatory, and linear concession-making
strategy [25]. To support negotiation with incom-
plete information, a co-evolutionary learning method
is used in the negotiation strategy with two types
of Estimation Distribution Algorithms (EDAs) such
as conventional EDAs and novel Improved Dynamic
Diversity Controlling EDAs [26].
The automated negotiation strategy can be devel-
oped without learning ability or with learning ability
depending on the environment [27]. Much research
works are available in the former case of nego-
tiation strategy without learning ability where the
negotiation attributes like price, time-slot, and speed
are constantly changes over the time [28–31]. In
the later case of negotiation strategy with learn-
ing ability, very few research works are presented
using behavioral learning approaches like Bayesian
learning [32], neural network learning [33, 34],
bulk negotiation behavioral learning [35], adaptive
probabilistic behavior learning [36], Reinforcement
learning [37–39], Evolutionary behavior learning
2313
[40], Co-evolutionary learning [41]. Moreover these
strategies can be applicable to the environment, where
the opponent’s behaviors are predictable or precisely
known. Hence, there is lack of negotiation strategy
with learning ability, where the opponent’s behavior
is partially and imprecisely known (such as uncer-
tain information about the preferences of opponent
agent).
To the best of our knowledge, only very few
research works are available in the context of fuzzy
based negotiation strategy. An agent-based fuzzy
constraint directed negotiation model is developed
for solving the problem of supply chain scheduling
and planning without using any third party agent [42,
43]. The same fuzzy based negotiation mechanism is
extended for establishing the SLA between the con-
sumer and provider in cloud computing environment
[44]. To enhance the negotiation outcome (satisfac-
tion level) of consumer and buyer, an automated
negotiation process is utilized with fuzzy inference
system for generating offer and counter-offer based
on the requirements and preferences of negotiat-
ing parties [45]. To further improve the negotiation
outcome, evolutionary approach is used in the nego-
tiation strategy for learning the new relaxed criteria
fuzzy rules [46]. An artificial intelligence approach is
embedded into negotiation process to form an adap-
tive fuzzy logic strategy for learning the behavior
of the opponent agent [47]. These strategies lack of
third party broker involvement and also lack of oppo-
nents fuzzy behavior learning mechanism during
negotiation process. So, this research work focuses
on developing broker based adaptive neuro-fuzzy
behavioral learning strategy for enforcing behav-
ioral learning concept under uncertain information.
Moreover, this research work includes the non func-
tional parameters like service name attribute, service
requirement attribute, service negotiation parameter
attribute, and functional parameters like total nego-
tiation time, communication overhead, utility value,
and success rate.
2.3. Negotiation protocol
The traditional model of negotiation reaches the
agreement through the exchange of offer and counter
offer between the parties using Contract Net Protocol
and Alternate Offer Protocol. In the Contract Net Pro-
tocol [48], one end of the negotiation party can send
the offer and the opponent party can either accept or
reject the offer. The actual concept of negotiation is
not realized in this protocol, because the opponent
2314 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
is not sending any counter offer. So, to realize the
negotiation concept, an alternate offer protocol [49]
is proposed where the opponent can accept, reject,
and modify the offer for sending the counter offer.
Later, Service Negotiation and Acquisition Protocols
were developed in the grid environment for support-
ing the reliable management of remote SLAs [50].
In order to establish the complex multi-party and
composite agreement, a requirement-driven negoti-
ation protocol is developed by iteratively discovering
the dependencies of the opponent’s requirements and
offers [51]. An automated negotiation is developed
in dynamic environments under restricted negotia-
tion time and interdependencies with three protocols:
Combinatorial Action Protocol, Cluster Bidding Pro-
tocol, and Mediated Negotiation Protocol [52]. To
automate the cloud service composition, a Focused
Selection Contract Net Protocol is used for dynam-
ically selecting the list of cloud agents and their
services [53]. A machine learning concept is inte-
grated in Wrap-5 cross-layer routing protocol [54].
According to recent literature study [55] and past lit-
erature study [56], an Alternate Offer Protocol is more
popularly used in all the real time applications due to
its significant realization and modeling of negotiation
process during the implementation.
3. Proposed fuzzy-based cloud service
negotiation framework
A conceptual architecture of the proposed fuzzy-
based cloud service negotiation framework is
represented in Fig. 1. The major components of
this framework includes service consumer, intelli-
gent third party broker, service provider, directory
facilitator registry service, Jade gateway agent ser-
vice, universal description discovery and integration
registry service, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavior
learning strategy. To automate the negotiation pro-
cess, agent based technology is embedded to mimic
the behavior of all the above components. Here, the
Service Consumer Agent (SCA), Intelligent Third-
Party Broker Agent (ITBA), and Service Provider
Agent (SPA) are involved in negotiating the service
on behalf of service consumer, intelligent third party
broker, and service provider respectively. The SCA
generates the requirements and preferences of ser-
vice consumer and forward the same to intelligent
third party broker. This component will identify the
appropriate ITBA to negotiate the service with mul-
tiple SPAs. Now, the actual negotiation process will
Fig. 1. Fuzzy-based cloud service negotiation framework.
takes place between the ITBA and SPAs and finally
suggest the committed service to SCA. During the
automation of negotiation process, the sequence of
offer and counter offer generated by the ITBA and
SPA will exploits certain negotiation strategy at each
negotiation states. In the proposed framework, the
ITBA exploits the adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavioral
learning strategy for maximizing the utility value and
success rate among the negotiation parties. This strat-
egy will learn the behavior of the opponent at each
negotiation state and generates the adaptive counter-
offer. Also, it increases the negotiation coordination
among the negotiating parties without causing any
negotiation conflict with the SPAs. Coordination may
leads to commitment of SLA and conflict may leads to
negotiation break off among the negotiating parties.
Thereby, behavior learning will maximize the util-
ity value and the commitment of SLA will maximize
success rate.
3.1. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavioral learning
strategy
The conceptual architectural of adaptive neuro-
fuzzy behavioral learning strategy consist of several
components like offer sensor agent, control initiator,
sensorial data administrator, fuzzy behavioral learn-
ing system, negotiation controller, basic negotiation
behaviors, and counter-offer actuator agent as shown
in Fig. 2. All ITBA will invoke this strategy after
receiving the negotiation offer from the opponents
for the sake of generating appropriate counter offer
to the SPAs. An offer sensor agent always senses the
 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making 2315

initiator, a negotiation controller component com-

putes the activation levels of all behavioral rules
which are to be incorporated during the negotiation
states. Finally, it choose the appropriate levels of
behavior activation in the basic negotiation behav-
iors as a collection of operating functions with the
intention of operating the agent behavior in parallel.

3.2. Formulation of fuzzy based negotiation

process using reinforcement learning
and artificial neural networks
Fig. 2. Architecture of adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavioral learning
model.
The actual bilateral negotiation process between
the ITBA and SPA can be formulated according
to the adaptive neuro-fuzzy behavioral learn-
offer and gives perceived negotiation state informa- ing strategy using reinforcement learning and
tion to the sensorial data administrator and control artificial neural network techniques. During the
initiator for further analysis. A control initiator com- negotiation process, sequence of offer ρa→b and
ponent supplies the precision value of several binary counter offer ρb→a are generated by the broker
predicates (or switching of agent’s mission) based agent a ∈ {ITBA1 , ITBA1 , . . . ITBAn } and provider
on the computations of sensorial observations from agent b ∈ {SPA1 , SPA1 , . . . , SPAm } with respect
offer sensor agent. Next, sensorial data administrator  multiple negotiation attribute or issue i ∈
to
start aggregating the negotiation offers received from Quality Quality
iPrice
1 , iTime−slot
2 , i3 , . . . in . Here, the
sensors and matches with approximate behavioral
broker agents adopt the proposed behavioral learn-
rules available in the component of basic negotiation
ing strategy for generating the sequence of offers.
behaviors. Later, this matching behavior rules with
Similarly, the provider agents also adopt any one of
different activation levels has to follow by the ITBA
the negotiation strategy like trade-off, linear, con-
during the process of counter offer generation. Addi-
ciliatory and conservative concession for generating
tionally, the sensorial data administrator calculates
the respective counteroffer. At any time stamp tk ∈
precision values of the predicates exploited by the {t1 , t2 , . . . , tn }, broker agent a’s negotiation offer
rule-matching algorithm. Based on mission switch-
decision on provider agent b’s past counter-offer at
ing and matching behavioral rules information, the
time tk−1 is defined in Equation (1).
fuzzy behavior learning system will implements the ⎧ tk−1 tk−2
reinforcement learning capability by continuously ⎪
⎪ accept, if U(ρb→a ) ≥ U(ρa→b )
⎨
updating the rule base consisting of fuzzy context tk tk−1 tk−2
ρa→b = reject, if U(ρb→a ) < U(ρa→b ) (1)
rules (meta-rules). It operates on the inhabitants of ⎪
⎪
⎩ offer, otherwise
fuzzy rules that characterize the antecedent (behav-
ioral context) and the consequent (basic behavior) of k−2 t
the rule. Where, the total utility of the offer U(ρa→b ) or
tk−1
At each negotiation state, this system helps in counter offer U(ρb→a ) is computed with respect to
improving the speed of negotiation convergence number of attributes involved in negotiation pro-
by learning best behavioral context for any course cess as shown in Equation (2). In order to maximize
of basic behavior employed in opponent’s agent. the utility, negotiator can give different preferences
Moreover, the reinforcement learning evaluates the over the negotiation attribute by assigning appropri-
performance among the agents at the end of each ate weight to the attributes.
negotiation state and distributes the reinforcement 
n
t t
values to the rules that control the agent during nego- k−2
U(ρa→b )= Wp × u(ρa→b
k−2
[ip ] (2)
tiation process. Each rule is estimating the strength p=1
of the antecedent to represent the appropriate con- t
k−2
text for the application of basic behavioral activation Let u(ρa→b [ip ]) denotes the utility value of the
tk−2
by the consequent. According to sensed negotiation attribute ip over offer ρa→b , Wp denotes the weight
and current mission switching initiated by the control assigned to the respective negotiation attribute ip ,
2316 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making

weight of each attribute range 0 < Wp < 1 and Table 1

thereby the total weight of attribute is equal to Fuzzy rule generation with respect to concession and preference
degree
one (W1 + W2 + . . . + Wn = 1). A value of each
fk∈{1,2} (ωPD) fk∈{1,2} (ωCD )
attribute range is [0,1] and it can be defined in terms
VL L M H VH
of fuzzy values as [ipVL , ipL , ipM , ipH , ipVH ]. Here,
VL FRVL,VL FRVL,L FRVL,M FRVL,M FRVL,VH
the offer attribute value VL, L, M, H, and VH stands L FRM,VL FRL,L FRL,M FRL,H FRL,VH
for very low, low, medium, high, and very high range M FRM,VL FRM,L FRM,M FRM,H FRM,VH
of values respectively. Normally, the highest util- H FRH,VL FRH,L FRH,M FRH,H FRH,VH
tk VH FRVH,VL FRVH,L FRVH,M FRVH,H FRVH,VH
ity value of one participant offer u(ρa→b pVH ]) =
[iITBA
1 may give lowest utility value for the oppo-
tk
nent u(ρa→b pVH ]) = 0. Similarly, the lowest utility
[iSPA Each dn impacts more on to the concession rate
tk
value of same participant offer u(ρa→b pVL ]) =
[iITBA derived from fuzzy rule FRf (ωPD ),f (ωCD ) , which
0 may give highest utility value for the opponent determines the different pair of membership func-
tk
u(ρa→b pVL ]) = 1.
[iSPA tions as states in Table 1. By exploiting these
During the bilateral negotiation process, the ITBA membership functions, one negotiating party can
only initiates the negotiation process by generating evaluate the behavior of opponent and then deter-
the offer proposal and also receives the correspond- mine the appropriate concession decision during
ing counter offer proposal from the SPA. From the counter offer generation process to quickly reach an
received offer, broker agent extracts the values of agreement. In order to handle dynamic situations of
negotiation attributes for computing the value of negotiation process, 25 different fuzzy rules adopts
opponent’s preference and concession degree by con- various concession rate according to five levels of
sidering the negotiation zone of the participants. membership functions. An average concession rate
Negotiation zone iZONE
p∈(1,n) is defined as the range of ωR can be defined by means of center of area method
negotiation attributes value between broker agent and for the defuzzification purpose as specified in Equa-
provider agent initial values, and agreement zone is tion (6).
defined as the range of negotiation attributes value
between broker agent and provider agent reservation
nd n × (ωR )n
values. Here, the initial value and reservation value ωR = (6)
represents the minimum and maximum value agreed n dn
to pay by the negotiating parties. At time tk the broker agent can generate the counter
tk
To effectively reach the agreement among the offer attributes ρa→b [iITBA
p ] based on received offer
negotiating parties, a concession degree and prefer- tk−1 SPA
ρb→a [ip ] at time tk−1 by adding or removing the
ence degree member functions are defined as shown
attributes range (iR 1 + i2 + . . . + in ) with average
R R
in Equations (3 and 4). This member function is used
concession rate as defined in Equation (7).
to predict the opponent’s preference degree (ωPD )
and concession degree (ωCD ) at each negotiation (iITBA
p )tk = (iSPA
p )
tk−1
⊕ iR
p × ωR (7)
state. Predicted values will be helpful during the
subsequent negotiation states for making appropriate Let the operator ⊕ denotes + and – for ITBA and
fuzzy behavioral decision by the proposed strategy. SPA respectively. The proposed negotiation strategy
generates the counteroffer by exploiting triangu-
1 + i2 + . . . + i n
iCR CR CR
lar shape to symbolize the fuzzy based preference
ωPD = (3)
iZONE
1 + iZONE
2 + . . . + iZONE
n
and concession degree membership functions with
respect to five levels as stated in Figs. 3 and 4
respectively.
1 + i2 + . . . in
iPR PR PR
ωCD = (4) In addition, the proposed negotiation framework
1 + i2 + . . . + i n
iR R R
defines the fuzzy behavior as triplet <C, D, E>. Let
The joint membership (desirability) function C be the negotiation context of application behav-
dn∈{1,2,3,4} can be expressed between two member- ior that describes the applicability of the behavior
ship function fk∈{1,2} (ωPD ) and fk∈{1,2} (ωCD ) as with respect to situations. D denotes the desirability
specified in Equation (5). function computed at each negotiation state-action
pair <s,a> that describes the desirability of perform-
dn = min[fk∈{1,2} (ωPD ), fk∈{1,2} (ωCD )] (5) ing action a at the negotiation state s of agent to
 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
Fig. 3. Preference degree membership function.
Fig. 4. Concession degree membership function.
realize the basic ability. Finally, E represents the ele-
ment or object of negotiation environment on which
the basic ability is applied. Enabling a fine compo-
sition of desirability function D can be implemented
with respect to different behavioral activation at the
same time, by means of fuzzy rules as given in Equa-
tion (8).
If (negotitation state IS Si )
THEN(action IS Ai )
Where each rule can be related with a function
in terms of T-norms as defined in Equation (9). The
desirability function of the negotiation behavior is
defined in terms of T-conorms as shown in Equation
(10).
DSi →Ai (s, a) = μSi (s) ⊗ μAi (a)
DB = ⊕i=1,2,...,n DSi →Ai (s, a)
Let n be the number of fuzzy rules that implements
the basic behavior. The negotiation context of appli-
cation can be defined in terms of logical combination
of predicates such as global context and environ-
mental context. Enforcing the negotiation context in
2317
behavioral activation is realized by the fuzzy rule as
shown in Equation (11).
If (negotiation state s IS in context C)
(11)
THEN (apply behavior A)
To make more evidence, distinguish global and
environmental context by rewriting the above rule as
defined in Equation (12).
negotiation state s IS in
If
environmental context EC
THEN (apply behavior A) (12)
negotiation state s IS in
WHEN
global context GC
Here the applicability conditions in the rule level
are treated as mission level equivalent of global con-
text. Therefore, replace the above rule as shown in
Equation (13).
negotiation state s IS in
If
environmental context EC
(13)
THEN (apply behavior A)
When (mission is M)
Let M denotes the mission which occurs when the
state s appears in the global context GC.
The mission M is formally defined as 4-touple <G,
AC, E, CS>. Where G is the goal of mission that
allows the agent to accomplish the task, AC denotes
the applicability conditions in which mission have
to be carried out, E is the element reference to the
(8) developed mission, and CS denotes the coordina-
tion of strategy among agents simple behavior that
recognizes the mission. The basic idea of proposed
adaptive neuro-fuzzy learning strategy is to formu-
late the model by applying the reinforcement learning
capability in artificial neural network in order to adapt
the negotiation parameters and features of fuzzy logic
system. To further have the transparency, neural net-
(9) work model make use of rule-based fuzzy reasoning
during its construction. A major advantage of this
(10) model is to tune the rules of fuzzy behavioral learn-
ing system using appropriate behavioral decision and
learning algorithm exploited in neural networks as
shown in Fig. 5. The proposed fuzzy behavioral learn-
ing system consist of three layer feed-forward model
with input layer (crisp input), hidden layer (rule) and
output layer (crisp output). An input layer deals with
2318 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making

Fig. 5. Neuro-fuzzy behavioral decision.

negotiation offers received by the broker agents dur-

ing the negotiation process. Hidden layer deals with
set of fuzzy if-then rules stated in Table 1. Finally,
the output layer represents the action aiming at gen-
erating the negotiation counteroffer decision at the
broker agent.

4. Experimental evaluation

The JADE simulation tool [57] is used to create

the experimental setup with set of negotiation par-
ticipants like SCA, SPA, and ITBA. Here, the real
scenario of this experiment setup is to simulate the
e-commerce cloud service negotiation happening in
the multi cloud environment. Usually the actual bilat-
eral negotiation process will takes place between the
ITBA and SPA. So, the preferences of these agents
are given in the front-end portal to start the actual
negotiation process as depicted in Fig. 6. A bilateral
negotiation process between the agents can be visu-
alized through the sniffer agent as shown in Fig. 7. In
order to evaluate the proposed adaptive neuro-fuzzy
behavioral learning strategy against the existing strat-
egy, this research work considered the parameters
such as utility value and success rate of the negotiat-
ing participants. For effective validation, benchmark
dataset used in the previous research study (Rajavel,
2016) [35, 36] is considered as shown in Table 2.
Fig. 6. Negotiation preferences of ITBA and SPA.
After the simulation, the normalized utility value and
success rate are observed by varying the number of
negotiation rounds with respect to different negotia-
tion strategies as represented in Table 3.
It is clear from the comparison table, that
the performance of proposed adaptive neuro-fuzzy
behavioral learning strategy outperforms the exist-
ing conciliatory and conservative strategies in terms
of utility value and success rate with respect to 50
negotiation rounds. After increasing the negotiation
rounds to 100, 200 and 500, the performance of pro-
posed strategy further increases to maximum extent
 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making 2319

Fig. 7. Visualization of bilateral negotiation process using sniffer agent.

Table 2 due to the enforcement of a fuzzy behavioral learning

Experimental setting of e-commerce cloud service negotiation system model in the strategy.
process
The major advantage of the proposed ANFBL
Input Attributes Settings
strategy will give maximum utility value and suc-
Broker Provider
Agent Agent cess rate during negotiation process without any
Initial Price [10,60] [200,250] break-off among the negotiating participants. Only
Reserved Price [200,250] [10,60] for minimum 50 negotiation round the success rate is
Initial Time-slot [10,60] [300,350] average, after increasing the negotiation round more
Reserved Time-slot [300,350] [10,60]
than 100 will always gives the maximum level of
Negotiation Deadline [50,200] [50,200]
Rounds Rounds success rate. This achievement is possible due to
Negotiation Agent [5,20] [5,20] fuzzy based behavioral learning approach exploited
in the negotiation strategy. Whereas in the exist-
ing strategy various approach like conciliatory and

Table 3
Performance of negotiation strategies
ITBA vs. SPA Strategies 50 Rounds 100 Rounds 200 Rounds 500 Rounds
Utility Success Utility Success Utility Success Utility Success
value rate value rate value rate value rate
Conciliatory vs. conciliatory 0.049 0 0.098 0 0.196 1 0.490 1
Conservative vs. conciliatory 0.049 0 0.426 1 0.426 1 0.426 1
ANFBL vs. conciliatory 0.919 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Conciliatory vs. conservative 0.491 0 0.983 1 1 1 1 1
Conservative vs. conservative 0.491 1 0.557 1 0.557 1 0.557 1
ANFBL vs. conservative 0.919 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2320 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
conservative approach is used, which created con-
stant rate of concession to negotiation offer or counter
offer. But, in the proposed ANFBL strategy conces-
sion for the offer or counter offer is generated accord-
ing to the behavior of the opponent’s. Thereby, the
proposed ANFBL strategy can provide more utility
value and success rate during the negotiation pro-
cess without any bothering of opponent’s negotiation
behavior.
5. Conclusion and feature work
The proposed research work evaluates the per-
formance of negotiation frameworks with respect
to different negotiation strategies. This reach work
identifies that the proposed adaptive neuro-fuzzy
behavioral learning strategy outperforms the exist-
ing conciliatory and conservative strategies in terms
of utility value and success rate at the minimum
level of negotiation rounds. After increasing to max-
imum level of negotiation rounds, the proposed
strategy always provides the utility value and suc-
cess rate due to learning capability embedded in
the strategy. To further increase the performance
of the negotiation framework, the degree of trust
worthiness and risk membership functions can be
added in the fuzzy behavioral learning mechanism.
The validity of the proposed negotiation framework
with respect to different combination of negotia-
tion strategies are demonstrated through exhaustive
simulation experiments. In future, this negotiation
strategy can also be extended with cognition and
evidence based behavioral learning approaches for
further maximization of utility value and success
rate by minimizing negotiation conflict among the
participants.
References
[1] A.G. Garcia, I.B. Espert and V.H. Garcia, SLA-driven
dynamic cloud resource management, Future Generation
Computer Systems 31 (2014), 1–11.
[2] R. Buyya, C.S. Yeo, S. Venugopal, J. Broberg and I. Brandic,
Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype,
and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility, Future
Generation Computer Systems 25 (2009), 599–616.
[3] V.C. Emeakaroha, I. Brandic, M. Maurer and S. Dust-
dar, Cloud resource provisioning and SLA enforcement
via LoM2HiS framework, Concurrency and Computation:
Practice and Experience 25 (2013), 1462–1481.
[4] M. Maurer, I. Brandic and R. Sakellariou, Adap-
tive resource configuration for Cloud infrastructure
management, Future Generation Computer Systems 29
(2013), 472–487.
[5] M. Macias and J. Guitart, SLA negotiation and enforcement
policies for revenue maximization and client classification
in cloud providers, Future Generation Computer Systems
41 (2014), 19–31.
[6] R. Rajavel and M. Thangarathanam, Optimizing negotiation
conflict in the cloud service negotiation framework using
probabilistic decision making model, The Scientific World
Journal 2015 (2015), 1–16.
[7] R. Rajavel and M. Thangarathanam, A negotiation frame-
work for the cloud management system using similarity
and gale shapely stable matching approach, KSII Trans-
actions on Internet and Information Systems 9 (2015),
2050–2077.
[8] B.P. Rimal and E. Choi, A service-oriented taxonomical
spectrum, cloudy challenges and opportunities of cloud
computing, International Journal of Communication Sys-
tems 25 (2012), 796–819.
[9] R. Rajavel and M. Thangarathanam, SLAOCMS: A lay-
ered architecture of SLA oriented cloud management
system for achieving agreement during resource failure,
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 236 (2014),
801–809.
[10] R. Buyya, S.K. Garg and R.N. Calheiros, SLA-Oriented
Resource Provisioning for Cloud Computing: Chal-
lenges, Architecture, and Solutions, IEEE International
Conference on Cloud and Service Computing, 2011,
pp. 1–10.
[11] A. Corradi and O.F. Rana, Editorial: The management of
cloud systems, Future Generation Computer Systems 32
(2014), 24–26.
[12] A.V. Dastjerdi and R. Buyya, An autonomous time-
dependent SLA negotiation strategy for cloud computing,
The Computer Journal 58 (2015), 1–15.
[13] S. Venticinque, L. Tasquier and B.D. Martino, Agents
based Cloud Computing Interface for Resource Provi-
sioning and Management, International Conference on
Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems, 2012,
pp. 249–256.
[14] K.M. Sim, Towards complex negotiation for cloud
economy, International Conference on Advances in
Grid and Pervasive Computing, LNCS 6104, 2010,
pp. 395–406.
[15] S. Adabi, A. Movaghar, A.M. Rahmani and H. Beigy, Mar-
ket based grid resource allocation using new negotiation
model, Journal of Network and Computer Applications 36
(2013), 543–565.
[16] I. Brandic, D. Music and S. Dustdar, Service mediation
and negotiation bootstrapping as first achievements towards
self-adaptable grid and cloud services, Grids and Service-
Oriented Architectures for Service Level Agreements, 2010,
pp. 119–132.
[17] D. Chieng, A. Marshall and G. Parr, SLA brokering and
bandwidth reservation negotiation schemes for QoS-aware
internet, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Man-
agement 2 (2005), 39–49.
[18] T. Groleat and H. Pouyllau, Distributed learning algorithms
for inter-NSP SLA negotiation management, IEEE Trans-
actions on Network and Service Management 9 (2012),
433–445.
[19] C. Liu, X. Zhang, C. Yang and J. Chena, CCBKE-Session
key negotiation for fast and secure scheduling of scien-
tific applications in cloud computing, Future Generation
Computer Systems 29 (2013), 1300–1308.
 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making
[20] K.M. Sim, Complex and concurrent negotiations for multi-
ple interrelated e-markets, IEEE Transaction on Cybernetics
43 (2013), 230–245.
[21] I. Rahwan, S.D. Ramchurn, N.R. Jennings, P. Mcburney,
S. Parsons and L. Sonenberg, Argumentation-based nego-
tiation, The Knowledge Engineering Review 18 (2003),
343–375.
[22] X. Zheng, P. Martin and K. Brohman, Cloud Service
Negotiation: Concession vs. Tradeoff Approaches, 12th
IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and
Grid Computing, 2012, pp. 515–522.
[23] J. Yan, R. Kowalczyk, J. Lin, M.B. Chhetri, S.K. Goh and
J. Zhang, Autonomous service level agreement negotiation
for service composition provision, Future Generation Com-
puter Systems 23 (2007), 748–759.
[24] G.C. Silaghi, L.D. Serban and C.M. Litan, A time-
constrained SLA negotiation strategy in competitive
computational grids, Future Generation Computer Systems
28 (2012), 1303–1315.
[25] S. Adabi, A. Movaghar, A.M. Rahmani and H. Beigy,
Negotiation strategies considering market, time and behav-
ior functions for resource allocation in computational grid,
Journal of Supercomputing 66 (2012), 1–40.
[26] J. Gwak and K.M. Sim, An augmented EDA with dynamic
diversity control and local neighborhood search for coevo-
lution of optimal negotiation strategies, Applied Intelligence
38 (2013), 600–619.
[27] M. Pooyandeh and D.J. Marceau, Incorporating Bayesian
learning in agent-based simulation of stakeholders’ nego-
tiation, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 48
(2014), 73–85.
[28] S. Son and K.M. Sim, A negotiation mechanism that
facilitates the price-timeslot QoS negotiation for establish-
ing SLAs of cloud service reservation, Communications
in Computer and Information Science 136 (2011),
432–446.
[29] J. Gwak and K.M. Sim, A novel method for coevolving PS-
optimizing negotiation strategies using improved diversity
controlling EDAs, Applied Intelligence 38 (2013), 384–417.
[30] S. Son and K.M. Sim, A price-and-time-slot-negotiation
mechanism for cloud service reservations, IEEE Trans-
action on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part B:
Cybernetics 42 (2012), 713–728.
[31] S. Son and K.M. Sim, Adaptive and similarity-based trade-
off algorithms in a price-timeslot-QoS negotiation system
to establish cloud SLAs, Information Systems Frontiers 17
(2015), 565–589.
[32] D. Zeng and K. Sycara, Bayesian learning in negotia-
tion, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48
(1998), 125–141.
[33] D.C. Moosmayer, A.Y. Chong, M.J. Liu and B. Schuppar,
A neural network approach to predicting price negotiation
outcomes in business-to-business contexts, Expert Systems
with Applications 40 (2013), 3028–3035.
[34] G. Wang, T.N. Wong and C. Yu, A computational model for
multi-agent Ecommerce negotiations with adaptive negotia-
tion behaviors, Journal of Computational Science 4 (2013),
135–143.
[35] R. Rajavel and M. Thangarathanam, ADSLANF: A nego-
tiation framework for the cloud management system using
Bulk Negotiation Behavioural Learning approach, Turkish
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 25
(2017), 1–50.
2321
[36] R. Rajavel and M. Thangarathanam, Adaptive probabilistic
behavioural learning system for the effective behavioural
decision in cloud trading negotiation market, Future Gen-
eration Computer Systems 58 (2016), 29–41.
[37] H. Pouyllau and G. Carofiglio, Inter-carrier SLA negotiation
using Q-learning, Telecommunication Systems 52 (2013),
611–622.
[38] A. Rapoport, T.E. Daniel and D.A. Seale, Reinforcement-
based adaptive learning in asymmetric two-person bargain-
ing with incomplete information, Experimental Economics
1 (1998), 221–253.
[39] A. Monteserin and A. Amandi, A reinforcement learning
approach to improve the argument selection effectiveness
in argumentation-based negotiation, Expert Systems with
Applications 40 (2013), 2182–2188.
[40] E. Gerding, D.V. Bragt and H.L. Poutre, Multi-issue nego-
tiation processes by evolutionary simulation, validation and
social extensions, Computational Economics 22 (2003),
39–63.
[41] J. Gwak, K.M. Sim and M. Jeon, Novel dynamic diversity
controlling EAs for coevolving optimal negotiation strate-
gies, Information Sciences 273 (2014), 1–32.
[42] C. Hsu, B. Kao, V.L. Ho, L. Li and K.R. Lai, An agent-based
fuzzy constraint-directed negotiation model for solving sup-
ply chain planning and scheduling problems, Applied Soft
Computting 48 (2016), 703–715.
[43] K. Kolomvatsos, K. Panagidi, I. Neokosmidis, D.
Varoutas and S. Hadjiefthymiades, Automated concurrent
negotiations: An artificial bee colony approach, Elec-
tronic Commerce Research and Applications 19 (2016),
56–69.
[44] L. Li, C.S. Yeo, C. Hsu, L. Yu and K.R. Lai, Agent-based
fuzzy constraint-directed negotiation for service level agree-
ments in cloud computing, Cluster Computing 21 (2018),
1349–1363.
[45] B. Shojaiemehr and M.K. Rafsanjani, A supplier offer mod-
ification approach based on fuzzy systems for automated
negotiation in e-commerce, Information Systems Frontiers
20 (2018), 143–160.
[46] K.M. Sim, Evolving fuzzy rules for relaxed-criteria negotia-
tion, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Part B (Cybernetics) 38 (2008), 1486–1500.
[47] C.W. Khuen, C.H. Yong and F. Haron, A framework for
multi-agent negotiation system using adaptive fuzzy logic
in resource allocation, International Journal of Information
Technology 11 (2005), 35–49.
[48] R.G. Smith, The contract net protocol: High-level com-
munication and control in a distributed problem solver,
IEEE Transactions on Computers C-29 (1980), 1104–
1113.
[49] S. Venugopal, X. Chu and R. Buyya, A negotiation mech-
anism for advance resource reservations using the alternate
offers protocol, International Workshop on Quality of Ser-
vice, Enschede (2008), 40–49.
[50] K. Czajkowski, I. Foster and C. Kesselman, SNAP: A
protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coor-
dinating resource management in distributed systems, Job
Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing 2537 (2002),
153–183.
[51] A. Klenk, A. Beck-Greinwald, H. Angst and G. Carle,
Iterative multi-party agreement negotiation for establishing
collaborations, Service Oriented Computing and Applica-
tions 6 (2012), 321–335.
2322 R. Rajavel et al. / ANFBL strategy for effective decision making

[52] F. Lang and A. Fink, Negotiating in dynamic environments: [56] V. Sanchez-Anguix, V. Julian, V. Botti and A. García-
Time efficient automated negotiations by means of combi- Fornes, Tasks for agent-based negotiation teams: Analysis,
natorial auctions, Evolving Systems 3 (2012), 189–201. review, and challenges, Engineering Applications of Artifi-
[53] K.M. Sim, Agent-based cloud computing, IEEE Transac- cial Intelligence 26 (2013), 2480–2494.
tions on Service Computing 5 (2012), 564–577. [57] M. Wooldridge, An Introduction to Multiagent Systems.
[54] B. Russell, M.L. Littman and W. Trappe, Integrating (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, United Kingdom, Chapter
machine learning in ad hoc routing: A wireless adaptive 2, 2009.
routing protocol, International Journal of Communication
Systems 24 (2011), 950–966.
[55] B. Shojaiemehr, A.M. Rahmani and N.N. Qader, Cloud
computing service negotiation: A systematic review, Com-
puter Standards & Interfaces 55 (2018), 196–206.