Learning algorithms for single-instance electronic negotiations using the time-dependent behavioral tactic
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
Negotiator often rely on learning an opponent's behavior and on then using the knowledge gained to arrive at a better deal. However, in an electronic negotiation setting in which the parties involved are often unknown to (and therefore lack information about) each other, this learning has to be accomplished with only the bid offers submitted during an ongoing negotiation. In this article, we consider such a scenario and develop learning algorithms for electronic agents that use a common negotiation tactic, namely, the time-dependent tactic (TDT), in which the values of the negotiating issues are dependent on the time elapsed in the negotiation. Learning algorithms for this tactic have not been proposed in the literature. Our approach is based on using the derivatives of the Taylor's series approximation of the TDT function in a three-phase algorithm that enumerates over a partial discretized version of the solution space. Computational results with our algorithms are encouraging.
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 | 0.001 | 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