Sharing Personal Data via Incentive-based Negotiation: Preference Modeling and Empirical Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an age where data is a pivotal asset for businesses, the ethical acquisition and use of personal information has become increasingly more significant. Empowering data providers with greater autonomy over their personal data is more important than ever. To address this, we propose a novel negotiation-based information-sharing framework that empowers individuals to actively negotiate the terms of their data sharing, addressing privacy concerns and ethical data usage. The framework enables users to determine what personal information they share and under what conditions, fostering a more balanced and transparent data exchange process. Our system allows data consumer agents to negotiate with their human users and can operate fully automatically, with agents representing data providers negotiating based on elicited preferences and needs. We propose novel preference modeling approaches and a negotiation framework to facilitate the bilateral sharing of information and incentives between data consumers and providers. User experiments demonstrate the efficacy of our negotiation approach and the effectiveness of the proposed preference models. Empirical results validate the benefits of the proposed framework.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it