Multi-item Auctions for Automatic Negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available resources can often be limited with regard to the number of demands. In this paper we propose an approach for solving this problem which consists of using the mechanisms of multi-item auctions for allocating the resources to a set of software agents. We consider the resource problem as a market in which there are vendor agents and buyer agents trading on items representing the resources. These agents use multi-item auctions which are viewed here as a process of automatic negotiation, and implemented as a network of intelligent software agents. In this negotiation, agents exhibit different acquisition capabilities which let them act differently depending on the current context or situation of the market. For example, the "richer"" an agent is, the more items it can buy, i.e. the more resources it can acquire. We present a model for this approach based on the English auction, then we discuss experimental evidence of such a model." Dans un environnement multiagent, les ressources peuvent toujours s'avérer insuffisantes relativement à un nombre élevé de demandes. Dans ce cahier, nous proposons une approche mixant les enchères et les agents logiciels en vue de contribuer à résoudre ce problème. Cette approche consiste en fait à utiliser le mécanisme d'enchères multi-articles en vue d'allouer les ressources à un ensemble d'agents. À cet effet, nous considérons le problème de ressources comme un marché dans lequel évoluent des agents acheteurs et des agents vendeurs négociant des articles représentant des ressources. Ces agents utilisent des enchères multi-articles et par conséquent ils constituent un processus de négociation automatisé et programmé comme un réseau d'agents logiciels. Dans ce type de négociation, chaque agent exhibe différentes capacités d'acquisition lui permettant ainsi d'agir différemment selon le contexte ou la situation de marché. Par exemple, plus on est riche, plus on peut acheter d'articles. Nous présentons pour ce modèle une enchère anglaise et nous discuterons ses résultats expérimentaux.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".