MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136430729 · doi:10.1109/dexa.2001.953145

An infrastructure for rule-driven negotiating software agents

2002· article· en· W2136430729 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNegotiationSoftwareSoftware agentComputer securitySoftware engineeringProgramming languageOperating systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most strategy-enabled automated negotiation platforms use hard-coded, predefined, and non-adaptive negotiation strategies. This is evidently insufficient in regard to the ambitions of automated negotiations research. In this paper, we introduce INSULA, an infrastructure for representing, managing, and exploring negotiation strategies that is versatile, easy to use, and that encompasses a wide spectrum of negotiation types. We treat negotiation strategies as declarative knowledge, and thus we represent them as if-then rules which soft-ware agents can exploit using an inference engine. The first part of the paper examines negotiation strategies and the possibility of using a rule-based approach to represent them. The second part details the architecture of INSULA, and some of the ongoing experimentations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207