MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969759693 · doi:10.3166/ria.28.433-462

Réduire l’arbitraire par la négociation quitte à concéder

2014· article· fr· W1969759693 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabien Delecroix, Maxime Morge, Jean-Christophe Routier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflicts are first-class citizen in Multi-Agents Systems and negotiation allows to handle these conflicts. We consider here the decision of agents having partial preferences since some alternatives are equivalent or incomparable. In order to evaluate the alternatives, we refine here the Pareto-optimality criteria by defining two kinds of compromise. We propose in this paper a negotiation game, i.e. a protocol and two strategies~: a conciliatory one and a temporizing one. Finally, we prove that the first one is social optimal while the second one is self-interested. Our experiments show that the temporizing strategy is dominant in very restrictive conditions and the number of agreements is smaller than the outcomes of a single agent decision and so less arbitrary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207