Negotiation in Agent Based Manufacturing Scheduling Using Auction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates issues in the application of auctions as negotiation mechanisms to agent based manufacturing scheduling. We model the negotiation environments that agents encounter as inter-enterprise environment and intra-enterprise environment. A formulation of intra-enterprise scheduling economy is presented. We proved that at price equilibrium, the solution computed by the agents in the economy is a Pareto optimal. AS our first attempt, we formally formulate automated auction configuration as an optimization problem. By solving the problem adaptive negotiation in multi-agent systems can be achieved. In addition to the theoretical models, we discussed various types of auction mechanisms and their applications to agent based manufacturing scheduling. Heuristics and procedures are proposed for solving the automated auction configuration problem. To validate the analysis and proposed approaches, as a case study, we apply the automated auction configuration heuristics and the procedure to an agent based shop floor scheduling environment. Experimental results show that the auction protocol selected by the proposed heuristics provides correct system functionalities. In addition, we compared the selected mechanism with other candidate mechanisms. We found that the selected one performs better in terms of reducing communication cost and improving solution quality.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".