Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS) conference series brings together researchers from around the world to share the latest advances in the field. It provides a highprofile and high-quality forum for research in the theory and practice of autonomous agents and multiagent systems. AAMAS 2002, the first of the series, was held in Bologna, followed by Melbourne (2003), New York (2004), Utrecht (2005), Hakodate (2006), Honolulu (2007), Estoril (2008), Budapest (2009), Toronto (2010), Taipei (2011), and Valencia (2012). You are now about to enter the proceedings of AAMAS 2013, held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in May 2013. In addition to the general track for the AAMAS 2013 conference, submissions were invited to four special tracks: robotics, virtual agents, innovative applications, and (new this year) a special challenges and visions track. The aims of these special tracks were to give researchers from these areas a strong focus, to provide a forum for discussion and debate within the encompassing structure of AAMAS, and to ensure that the impact of both theoretical contributions and innovative applications were recognized. The tracks were chaired by leaders in the corresponding fields: Daniele Nardi and Monica Nicolescu for the robotics track, Stefan Kopp and Catherine Pelachaud for the virtual agents track, Bo An and John Thangarajah for the innovative applications track, and Jeff Rosenschein for the challenges and visions track. The special track chairs provided critical input to selection of Program Committee (PC) and Senior Program Committee (SPC) members, and to the reviewer allocation and the review process itself. Both full paper and extended abstract submissions were solicited for AAMAS 2013. The papers were selected by means of a thorough review and discussion process which included an opportunity for authors to respond to reviewer comments, a discussion phase between SPC members and (track/PC) chairs, after which the program chairs made the final decisions. In the general track, 13 papers were withdrawn that were accepted as extended abstracts. No other papers were withdrawn after notification. Each full paper was allocated 8 pages in the proceedings, challenges and visions papers were allocated 4 pages, and extended abstracts 2 pages. Oral presentations were allocated 20 minutes in the program. Both full papers and extended abstracts were presented as posters during the conference. Of the submissions, 383 (64%) were indicated as being student papers, which indicates that AAMAS continues to be a nurturing environment for students. Submissions were assigned keywords, each of which was classified under one of 15 top-level topics (e.g., Cooperation). Representation of top-level topics (measured by first keyword) was broad, with top counts in the areas of Economic Paradigms (201 submissions), Agent Cooperation (137), Agent Reasoning (111), Learning and Adaptation (100), and Robotics (94).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,022 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».