An Evolutionary Learning Approach for Adaptive Negotiation Agents

Developing effective and efficient negotiation mechanisms for real-world applications such as e-Business is challenging since negotiations in such a context are characterised by combinatorially complex negotiation spaces, tough deadlines, very limited information about the opponents, and volatile negotiator preferences. Accordingly, practical negotiation systems should be empowered by effective learning mechanisms to acquire dynamic domain knowledge from the possibly changing negotiation contexts. This paper illustrates our adaptive negotiation agents which are underpinned by robust evolutionary learning mechanisms to deal with complex and dynamic negotiation contexts. Our experimental results show that GA-based adaptive negotiation agents outperform a theoretically optimal negotiation mechanism which guarantees Pareto optimal. Our research work opens the door to the development of practical negotiation systems for real-world applications

Integrating model checking with HiP-HOPS in model-based safety analysis

The ability to perform an effective and robust safety analysis on the design of modern safety–critical systems is crucial. Model-based safety analysis (MBSA) has been introduced in recent years to support the assessment of complex system design by focusing on the system model as the central artefact, and by automating the synthesis and analysis of failure-extended models. Model checking and failure logic synthesis and analysis (FLSA) are two prominent MBSA paradigms. Extensive research has placed emphasis on the development of these techniques, but discussion on their integration remains limited. In this paper, we propose a technique in which model checking and Hierarchically Performed Hazard Origin and Propagation Studies (HiP-HOPS) – an advanced FLSA technique – can be applied synergistically with benefit for the MBSA process. The application of the technique is illustrated through an example of a brake-by-wire system

Evolving standards in the complaints branch

It is well known that dispute resolution schemes in the complaints branch, including ombudsman schemes and complaint-handlers, operate a very different dispute resolution methodology to that typically applied in the courts and tribunals. This methodology is widely accepted, but concerns have always existed regarding the fairness of the procedural safeguards deployed in the complaints branch. This article investigates two specific areas of procedural practice in the complaints branch: the openness of the sector in terms of the decisions that it makes and the grounds upon which they are made; and the capacity to review decisions made in the sector. The article argues that there is evidence that, whilst further refinement could be introduced, procedural safeguards in the sector are more robust than hitherto has been understood