MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061164428 · doi:10.1145/1082960.1082968

xTAO

2005· article· en· W2061164428 on OpenAlexaff
Toacy Oliveira, Paulo Alencar, Donald Cowan, Carlos Lucena

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModeling languageSoftware engineeringExtensibilityXMLContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Unified Modeling LanguageIntelligent agentSoftware agentProgramming languageHuman–computer interactionSoftwareArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on software agents has produced a diversity of conceptual models for high-level abstract descriptions of multi-agent systems (MASs). However, it is still difficult and costly for designers that need a unique set of agent modeling features to either develop a new agent modeling language from scratch or undertake the task of modifying an existing language. In addition to the modeling itself, in both cases a significant effort needs to be expended in building or adapting tools to support the language. An extensible agent modeling language is crucial to experimenting with and building tools for novel modeling constructs that arise from evolving research. Existing approaches typically support a basic set of modeling constructs very well, but adapt to others poorly. A declarative language such as XML and its supporting tools provides an ideal platform upon which to develop an extensible modeling language for multi-agent systems. In this paper we describe xTAO, an extensible agent modeling language, and also demonstrate its value in the context of a real-world application.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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