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