MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1628510906 · doi:10.1109/saint.2004.1266129

MAS and fault-management

2004· article· en· W1628510906 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Xu, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentNegotiationComputer scienceField (mathematics)Fault managementEmpirical researchScale (ratio)Multi-agent systemKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityProcess managementManagement scienceEngineeringBusinessSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the considerable efforts spent on researching and developing multi-agent systems (MAS) there is a noticeable absence of deployed systems. In the past the MAS research community ignored this problem - arguing that it is not a genuine MAS problem and consequently of lesser importance than other unsolved issues like cooperation, coordination, negotiation and communication. However, as the field matures, empirical evaluations of techniques and systems are more commonly used and deployment issues like the management of a MAS become increasingly important. This paper introduces a generic framework for fault-management in MAS that has been successfully tested in a large scale MAS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207