A Fuzzy Logic Based Intelligent Negotiation Agent (FINA) in Ecommerce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the evolution of electronic commerce (eCommerce) on the Web and the rise of interest in intelligence of software agents, automated negotiation is becoming an increasingly popular method for an eCommerce system to be efficient; however, negotiation, which takes place in transactions, is complicated, time-consuming and costly for participants to reach an agreement. This paper presents a model of an intelligent negotiation agent based on fuzzy logic methodology in order to alleviate the complexity of negotiation. The proposed negotiation agent model is particularly suitable to open environments, such as the Internet. The conventional methods, such as game theory, are incapable of handling an open environment where the information is sparse and full of uncertainty, while the fuzzy approaches are suitable to elegantly deal with this problem. The fuzzy logic based intelligent negotiation agent, presented in this paper, is able to interact autonomously and consequently save human labor in negotiations. The aim of modeling a negotiation agent is to reach mutual agreement efficiently and intelligently. The negotiation agent is able to negotiate with other such agents, over various sets of issues, on behalf of the real-world parties they represent, i.e. it can handle multi-issue negotiation. The reasoning model of the negotiation agent has been implemented partially by using c# based on Microsoft .NET. The reliability and the flexibility of the reasoning model are finally evaluated. The results show that performance of the proposed agent model is acceptable for negotiation parties to achieve mutual benefits
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".