{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019836639439906652, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.217391304347826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A framework to evaluate multi-objective optimization algorithms in multi-agent negotiations

Multi-objective optimization algorithms are designed to find Pareto frontier set. This set plays a major role in multi-agent systems' negotiations. Different applications might be interested in different parts of Pareto frontier. In this paper we present a framework to show how a multi-objective optimization algorithm is evaluated against others. We used eleven algorithms implemented in MOMHLib++ library to test our framework on a two agent negotiation of binary issues and binary dependency. But our framework is easily expandable to higher number of objectives and all types of negotiations. Our analysis shows that a single scalarization value of Pareto frontier is not enough to compare multi-objective optimization algorithms, as it is done in most cases.