A multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation architecture for electronic commerce
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a generic negotiation architecture that uses MultiAttribute Utility Theory (MAUT) principles to reach agreements that satisfy multiple interdependent objectives. The architecture is built by giving a constraint optimization formulation to the MAUT principles and by using a constraint optimization solver to find the best 'deals' from an agent's local perspective. These are then proposed to other agents via a second component that supports conversational interactions among agents. When received proposals are disjoint from what an agent can currently accept, we provide a systematic constraint relaxation protocol that allows agents to generate the next acceptable 'deal'. This protocol ensures that in the end the Pareto optimal deal will be found, if one exists. The approach is built on top of our Negotiation Engine, a generic architecture for coordination and negotiation that integrates local reasoning, in the form of propositional constraint optimization, with interaction, in the form of conversational exchanges. The system is fully operational, being currently used to automate negotiations in the electronic components domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it