Optimizing bid search in large outcome spaces for automated multi-issue negotiations using meta-heuristic methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bidding strategy is an important part of a negotiation strategy in automated multi-issue negotiations. In order to present good offers, which help maximize the agent’s utility, we need to search the outcome space and find appropriate bids. Bid search can become challenging in large outcome spaces with more than ten thousands of possible bids. The traditional search methods such as exhaustive or binary search are not efficient enough to find the right bids in a large space. This is mostly due to the high number of issues, high number of possible values for each issue, and increased time complexity of usual search methods. In this paper, we investigate the potential of using meta-heuristic methods for optimizing bid search in large outcome spaces. We apply some of the most popular meta-heuristic algorithms for bid search in bidding strategy of baseline negotiating agents and evaluate their impacts on negotiation performance in different negotiation domains. The evaluation results obtained through comprehensive experiments show how meta-heuristic algorithms can help improve bid search capability and consequently negotiation performance of the agents on different performance criteria. In addition, we show which search algorithm is most suitable for improving any particular performance criterion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".