<i>BLGAN</i>: Bayesian Learning and Genetic Algorithm for Supporting Negotiation With Incomplete Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated negotiation provides a means for resolving differences among interacting agents. For negotiation with complete information, this paper provides mathematical proofs to show that an agent's optimal strategy can be computed using its opponent's reserve price (RP) and deadline. The impetus of this work is using the synergy of Bayesian learning (BL) and genetic algorithm (GA) to determine an agent's optimal strategy in negotiation (N) with incomplete information. BLGAN adopts: 1) BL and a deadline-estimation process for estimating an opponent's RP and deadline and 2) GA for generating a proposal at each negotiation round. Learning the RP and deadline of an opponent enables the GA in BLGAN to reduce the size of its search space (SP) by adaptively focusing its search on a specific region in the space of all possible proposals. SP is dynamically defined as a region around an agent's proposal P at each negotiation round. P is generated using the agent's optimal strategy determined using its estimations of its opponent's RP and deadline. Hence, the GA in BLGAN is more likely to generate proposals that are closer to the proposal generated by the optimal strategy. Using GA to search around a proposal generated by its current strategy, an agent in BLGAN compensates for possible errors in estimating its opponent's RP and deadline. Empirical results show that agents adopting BLGAN reached agreements successfully, and achieved: 1) higher utilities and better combined negotiation outcomes (CNOs) than agents that only adopt GA to generate their proposals, 2) higher utilities than agents that adopt BL to learn only RP, and 3) higher utilities and better CNOs than agents that do not learn their opponents' RPs and deadlines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".