MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019522929 · doi:10.15439/2014f482

Using Fuzzy Logic and Q-Learning for Trust Modeling in Multi-agent Systems

2014· article· en· W2019522929 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

VenueAnnals of Computer Science and Information Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy logicMulti-agent systemReinforcement learningArtificial intelligenceQ-learningDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—Often in multi-agent systems, agents interact with other agents to fulfill their own goals. Trust is, therefore, considered essential to make such interactions effective. This work describes a trust model that augments fuzzy logic with Q-learning to help trust evaluating agents select beneficial trustees for interaction in uncertain, open, dynamic, and untrusted multi-agent systems. The performance of the proposed model is evaluated using simulation. The simulation results indicate that the proper augmentation of fuzzy subsystem to Q-learning can be useful for trust evaluating agents, and the resulting model can respond to dynamic changes in the environment. I.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.201 · 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