A SUPER‐AGENT‐BASED FRAMEWORK FOR REPUTATION MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY FORMATION IN DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we propose a novel super‐agent‐based framework for reputation management and community formation in decentralized systems. We describe this framework in the context of Web service selection where agents with more capabilities act as super‐agents. These super‐agents serve as reputation managers to maintain reputation information of services and share the information with other consumer agents that have fewer capabilities than the super‐agents. In addition, super‐agents can maintain communities and build community‐based reputation for a service based on the opinions from all community members that have similar interests and judgement criteria as the super‐agents or the other community members. A practical reward mechanism is also introduced to create incentives for super‐agents to contribute their resources (to maintain reputation and form communities) and provide truthful reputation information. Experimental results obtained through simulation confirm that our approach achieves better effectiveness and scalability compared to the systems that do not use super‐agents and that do not form communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it