MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063887261 · doi:10.1142/s0218488515500075

Multiagent Decision Making in Collaborative Decision Networks by Utility Cluster Based Partial Evaluation

2015· article· en· W2063887261 on OpenAlexafffund
Yang Xiang, Frank Hanshar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubnetComputer scienceSuiteCluster analysisComputationOptimal decisionTransformation (genetics)Focus (optics)Artificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningDistributed computingDecision treeAlgorithmComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider optimal multiagent cooperative decision making in stochastic environments. The focus is on simultaneous decision making, during which agents cooperate by limited communication. We model the multiagent system as a collaborative decision network (CDN). Several techniques are developed to improve efficiency for decision making with CDNs. We present an equivalent transformation of CDN subnets to facilitate model manipulation. We propose partial evaluation to allow action profiles evaluated with reduced computation. We decompose a CDN subnet, based on clustering of utility variables. A general simultaneous decision making algorithm suite is developed that embeds these techniques. We show that the new algorithm suite improves efficiency by a combination of a linear factor and an exponential factor.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based SystemsSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207