MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985773593 · doi:10.1109/ines.2013.6632796

Detection and verification of a new type of emergent behavior in multiagent systems

2013· article· en· W1985773593 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatemeh H. Fard, Behrouz H. Far

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware deploymentComponent (thermodynamics)Distributed computingMulti-agent systemSoftwareClass (philosophy)Component-based software engineeringSoftware agentSoftware systemType (biology)Software engineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The verification of Distributed Software Systems (DSS) and Multi agent systems (MAS) has taken a special attention due to the growing demand of having DSS in this decade. MAS and DSS are a class of software in which functionality or control is distributed. This may cause components (agents) to emerge an unexpected behavior in their runtime, which was not seen in the requirement and design. This is known as emergent behavior of components. The cost of detecting and fixing of such problem is much more valuable compared to fix them after deployment. Therefore, in this paper a new type of emergent behavior that can happen in MAS is investigated. A method for verification of this type of emergent behavior is proposed followed by an algorithm. This type of emergent behavior can not be detected with the existing methods of emergent behavior detection. This type of emergent behavior focuses on one component when it misses the information about the senders of the same message from different components. The contribution of this work rather than investigating this type of emergent behaviors is on its verification method and also proposing a solution to fix it. The details are shown through a case study on MaSE artifacts which is an Agent Oriented Software Engineering methodology.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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