GeNCA, un modèle général de négociation de contrats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La modelisation de phenomenes de groupe est au coeur de la problematique multi-agents. Parmi eux se trouvent les systemes de negociation automatique qui ont ete largement etudies dans le domaine du commerce electronique pour modeliser notamment les encheres. Dans cet article, nous presentons un modele general de negociation pour les systemes multi-agents, appele GeNCA (Generic Negotiation of Contracts API), s'appuyant sur une decomposition a trois niveaux : un niveau de communication, un niveau de negociation et un niveau strategique, seul niveau specifique a une application fixee. Le modele de negociation presente se veut general et parametrable a differents types de negociations. Il a ete implemente sous la forme d'une API Java appelee aussi GeNCA, que nous avons utilisee pour construire nos applications. GeNCA est la seule plateforme qui permette d'utiliser differents systemes de communication et des strategies de negociation specifiques aux applications realisees. Ces recherches sur la negociation s'inscrivent dans le cadre de travaux en genie logiciel pour l'intelligence artificielle et les systemes multi-agents.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".