Domain experts are skilled in buliding a narrow ontology that reflects their subfield of expertise based on their work experience and personal beliefs. We call this type of ontology a single‐viewpoint ontology. There can be a variety of such single viewpoint ontologies that represent a wide spectrum of subfields and expert opinions on the domain. However, to have a complete formal vocabulary for the domain they need to be linked and unified into a multiviewpoint model while having the subjective viewpoint statements marked and distinguished from the objectively true statements. In this study, we propose and implement a two‐phase methodology for multiviewpoint ontology construction by nonexpert users. The proposed methodology was implemented for the domain of the effect of diet on health. A large‐scale crowdsourcing experiment was conducted with about 750 ontological statements to determine whether each of these statements is objectively true, viewpoint, or erroneous. Typically, in crowdsourcing experiments the workers are asked for their personal opinions on the given subject. However, in our case their ability to objectively assess others' opinions was examined as well. Our results show substantially higher accuracy in classification for the objective assessment approach compared to the results based on personal opinions.

An automated negotiator is an intelligent agent whose task is to reach the best possible agreement. We explore a novel approach to developing a negotiation strategy, a ‘domain-based approach’. Specifically, we use two domain parameters, reservation value and discount factor, to cluster the domain into different regions, in each of which we employ a heuristic strategy based on the notions of temporal flexibility and bargaining strength. Following the presentation of our cognitive and formal models, we show in an extensive experimental study that an agent based on that approach wins against the top agents of the automated negotiation competition of 2012 and 2013, and attained the second place in 2014.

This paper represents a paradigm shift in what advice agents should provide people. Contrary to what was previously thought, we empirically show that agents that dispense optimal advice will not necessary facilitate the best improvement in people's strategies. Instead, we claim that agents should at times suboptimally advise. We provide results demonstrating the effectiveness of a suboptimal advising approach in extensive experiments in two canonical mixed agent-human advice-giving domains. Our proposed guideline for suboptimal advising is to rely on the level of intuitiveness of the optimal advice as a measure for how much the suboptimal advice presented to the user should drift from the optimal value.