Human-Agent Negotiations: The Impact Agents Concession Schedule and Task Complexity on Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment of software agents for conducting negotiations with online customers promises to increase the flexibility and reach of the exchange mechanism and reduce transaction costs. Past research had suggested different negotiation tactics for the agents, and had used them in experimental settings against human negotiators. This work explores the interaction between negotiation strategies and the complexity of the negotiation task as represented by the number of negotiation issues. Including more issues in a negotiation potentially allows the parties more space to maneuver and, thus, promises higher likelihood of agreement. In practice, the consideration of more issues requires higher cognitive effort, which could have a negative effect on reaching an agreement. The results of human–agent negotiation experiments conducted at a major Canadian university revealed that there is an interaction between chosen strategy and task complexity. Also, when competitive strategy was employed, the agents' utility was the highest. Because competitive strategy resulted in fewer agreements the average utility per agent was the highest in the compromising–competitive strategy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".