Transfer Learning based Agent for Automated Negotiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although great success has been made in automated negotiation, a major issue still stands out: it is inefficient that learning a policy from scratch when an agent encounters an unknown opponent. Transfer learning (TL) can alleviate this problem by utilizing the knowledge of previously learned policies to accelerate the current task learning. This work presents a novel Transfer Learning-based Negotiating Agent (TLNAgent) framework that allows an autonomous agent to transfer previous knowledge from source policies to help with new tasks, while boosting its performance. TLNAgent comprises three key components: the negotiation module, the adaptation module and the transfer module. Specifically, the negotiation module is responsible for interacting with the other agent during negotiation. The adaptation module measures the helpfulness of each source policy based on a fusion of two selection mechanisms. The transfer module is based on lateral connections between source and target networks and accelerates the agent's training by transferring knowledge from the selected source policy. Our comprehensive experiments clearly demonstrate that TL is effective in the context of automated negotiation, and \name outperforms state-of-the-art negotiating agents in various domains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".