MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165883286 · doi:10.65109/ovuf6099

Maintenance-based trust for multi-agent systems

2009· article· en· W165883286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReputationProcess (computing)Multi-agent systemOrder (exchange)Set (abstract data type)TrustworthinessComputational trustArchitectureRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In last years, trust and reputation has been gaining increasing interest in multi-agent systems (MAS). To address this issue, we propose in this paper a maintenance-based trust mechanism for agents operating in multi-agent systems. In the proposed model, a comprehensive trust assessment process is provided to assess the trustworthiness of the participating agents. The main characteristic of this model is the retrospect trust adjustments, which integrate the applicable constraints and modify the involved features with respect to the actual performance of the evaluated agent. Specifically, the retrospect process updates the belief set of the agents in order to adapt them to the social network changes. This paper has two contributions: after describing the architecture of the proposed framework, we provide a theoretical analysis of its assessment and discuss the system implementation, along with simulations comparing it with the broadly known frameworks.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207