The current state of automated negotiation theory: a literature review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02614v2
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:17:46 GMT
• Title: The current state of automated negotiation theory: a literature review
• Authors: Sam Vente (1), Angelika Kimmig (1), Alun Preece (1), Federico Cerutti (2) ((1) Cardiff University, (2) University of Brescia)
• Abstract summary: Automated negotiation can be an efficient method for resolving conflict and redistributing resources in a coalition setting. Significant barriers to more widespread adoption remain, such as lack of predictable outcome over time and user trust.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated negotiation can be an efficient method for resolving conflict and redistributing resources in a coalition setting. Automated negotiation has already seen increased usage in fields such as e-commerce and power distribution in smart girds, and recent advancements in opponent modelling have proven to deliver better outcomes. However, significant barriers to more widespread adoption remain, such as lack of predictable outcome over time and user trust. Additionally, there have been many recent advancements in the field of reasoning about uncertainty, which could help alleviate both those problems. As there is no recent survey on these two fields, and specifically not on their possible intersection we aim to provide such a survey here.

Related papers

• Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI [67.58673784790375]
  We argue that the 'bigger is better' AI paradigm is not only fragile scientifically, but comes with undesirable consequences. First, it is not sustainable, as its compute demands increase faster than model performance, leading to unreasonable economic requirements and a disproportionate environmental footprint. Second, it implies focusing on certain problems at the expense of others, leaving aside important applications, e.g. health, education, or the climate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T14:43:54Z)
• Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcement [21.44063458579184]
  In selection processes such as college admissions or hiring, biasing slightly towards applicants from under-represented groups is hypothesized to provide positive feedback. We propose the Multi-agent Fair-Greedy policy, which balances greedy score and fairness. Our results indicate that, while positive reinforcement is a promising mechanism for long-term fairness, policies must be designed carefully to be robust to variations in the evolution model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T04:03:23Z)
• Sequential Manipulation Against Rank Aggregation: Theory and Algorithm [119.57122943187086]
  We leverage an online attack on the vulnerable data collection process. From the game-theoretic perspective, the confrontation scenario is formulated as a distributionally robust game. The proposed method manipulates the results of rank aggregation methods in a sequential manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T03:31:21Z)
• False consensus biases AI against vulnerable stakeholders [0.8754707197790144]
  We explore the public acceptability of speed-accuracy trade-offs in populations of claimants and non-claimants. We observe a general willingness to trade off speed gains for modest accuracy losses, but this aggregate view masks notable divergences between claimants and non-claimants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T14:33:47Z)
• Learning to Maximize Gains From Trade in Small Markets [6.204762177970342]
  We study the problem of designing a two-sided market (double auction) under the constraints of (dominant-strategy) incentive compatibility and budget-balance. Our result is a general impossibility for the case of correlated distributions of values even between one seller and two buyers. Our second is an efficient learning algorithm for one seller and two buyers in the case of independent distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-21T20:57:12Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• Two-stage Modeling for Prediction with Confidence [0.0]
  It is difficult to generalize the performance of neural networks under the condition of distributional shift. We propose a novel two-stage model for the potential distribution shift problem. We show that our model offers reliable predictions for the vast majority of datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-19T08:48:07Z)
• Incentives for Item Duplication under Fair Ranking Policies [69.14168955766847]
  We study the behaviour of different fair ranking policies in the presence of duplicates. We find that fairness-aware ranking policies may conflict with diversity, due to their potential to incentivize duplication more than policies solely focused on relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-29T11:11:15Z)
• E-Commerce Dispute Resolution Prediction [69.84319333335935]
  We take a first step towards automatically assisting human agents in dispute resolution at scale. We construct a large dataset of disputes from the eBay online marketplace, and identify several interesting behavioral and linguistic patterns. We then train classifiers to predict dispute outcomes with high accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T09:45:06Z)
• On the Importance of Regularisation & Auxiliary Information in OOD Detection [9.340611077939828]
  This deficiency demonstrates a fundamental flaw indicating that neural networks often overfit on spurious correlations. We present two novel objectives that improve the ability of a network to detect out-of-distribution samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-15T18:57:10Z)
• Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets: Uncertain Preferences and Strategic Behaviors [91.3755431537592]
  This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in real-world matching markets. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-13T19:25:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.