A Negotiation Protocol for Meeting Scheduling Agent
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
Abstract Negotiation is a general mechanism for reaching an agreement that involves multiple individuals. In multi-agent sys- tems, automatic negotiation is one of the main ongoing research issues. Over the last two decades, many attempts have been made to handle naturally distributed agreement problems via automatic negotiation. These naturally distributed problems are easy to understand for their simplicity, but are hard to handle automatically. In order to reach an agreement using automatic negotiation, there is a need for a structured negotiation protocol. In this paper, we propose an agent negotiation protocol for meeting scheduling, one of the prominent naturally distributed problem. This paper assumes that there is a scheduling agent and it has the knowledge about user preferences, meeting participants’profile, holds a reasoning mechanism to evaluate a meeting invitation, and capable of selecting negotiation strategies automatically. The proposed negotiation protocol assists the meeting scheduling agent to handle bilateral and multilateral negotia- tion scenarios. We demonstrate a number of meeting scheduling scenarios to show how the protocol assists automatic negotiation process and its effectiveness during the scheduling activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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