Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Set 1
Set 3
Set 2
Figure 10.6
Matching the agents who depend on
Ag
j
for something and those on which
Ag
j
depends
for its goal
g
In general, we can represent the objective dependence of
Ag
j
as shown in Figure 10.6:
set1
represents the set of agents who depend on
Ag
j
for something (actions, plans, resources),
set2
represents the set of agents on which
Ag
j
depends for achieving their own specific goal
g
jk
.
The intersection between
set1
and
set2
(part
set3
) is the set of agents with whom
Ag
j
could
potentially negotiate for achieving
g
jk
. The greater the overlap the greater the
negotiation
power
of
Ag
j
in that context.
3
However, the negotiation power of
Ag
j
also depends on the possible alternatives that its
potential partners have: the fewer alternatives to
Ag
j
they have, the greater its negotiation
power (see Figure 10.4). We can define the
Subjective Potential for Negotiation
of
Ag
j
∈
Agt
about its own goal
g
jk
- and call it
SPN(Ag
j
,g
jk
)
- the following function:
l
Bj
1
SPN
(
Ag
j
,
g
jk
)
=
(10.4)
p
Bj
ki
1
+
i
=
1
3
Even if increasing the number of agents in the overlap doesn't necessarily increase the probability of achieving
Ag
j
's goal (maybe one (or more) of the needed resources is not owned by an increasing number of agents).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search