MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994507382 · doi:10.1145/860575.860760

Using dynamic proxy agent replicate groups to improve fault-tolerance in multi-agent systems

2003· article· en· W1994507382 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Fedoruk, Ralph Deters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependabilityReplicateDistributed computingComputer scienceFault toleranceRedundancy (engineering)ArchitectureMulti-agent systemReplication (statistics)Communication in small groupsAgent architectureReliability engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the considerable effort spent researching and developing multi-agent systems the actual number of deployed systems is still surprisingly small. One of the reasons for the significant gap between developed and deployed systems is their brittleness. Multi-agent systems are susceptible to all of the same faults as any distributed system, they lack centralized control components, which makes it difficult to detect and treat failures of individual agents, and the agents making up the system are social, thus risking fault-propagation These faults can impact system performance and lead to overall system failure. Multi-agent systems must be made more dependable before they will be deployed on a large scale. Using redundancy by replication of individual agents within a multi-agent system is one possible approach for improving fault-tolerance, and hence improving reliability and availability-two key components of dependability. Having a group of agents, a replicate group, act like an individual agent leads to increased complexity and system load, and it introduces new challenges to system construction. Using a message proxy, to handle communication for the group, and passive replication strategies effectively deals with the complexity and overhead issues. This paper presents an architecture for implementing agent replicate groups using a message proxy and passive replicate group management. Experimentation and application testing using an implementation of the architecture is presented. The architecture is demonstrated to be a viable technique for increasing dependability in multi-agent systems.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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