The Advantages of Designing Adaptive Business Agents Using Reputation Modeling Compared to the Approach of Recursive Modeling
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
Adaptive business agents operate in electronic marketplaces, learning from past experiences to make effective decisions on behalf of their users. How best to design these agents is an open question. In this article, we present an approach for the design of adaptive business agents that uses a combination of reinforcement learning and reputation modeling. In particular, we take into account the fact that multiple selling agents may offer the same good with different qualities, and that selling agents may alter the quality of their goods. We also consider the possibility of dishonest agents in the marketplace. Our buying agents exploit the reputation of selling agents to avoid interaction with the disreputable ones, and therefore to reduce the risk of purchasing low value goods. We then experimentally compare the performance of our agents with those designed using a recursive modeling approach. We are able to show that agents designed according to our algorithms achieve better performance in terms of satisfaction and computational time and as such are well suited for the design of electronic marketplaces.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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