MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065794244 · doi:10.11120/ital.2005.04030005

Teaching Multi-Agent Systems using the ARES Simulator

2005· article· en· W2065794244 on OpenAlexaff
Jörg Denzinger, Jordan Kidney

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)SimulationSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringEngineeringWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the ARES 2 system, a simulator of a city struck by an earthquake to be used as testbed for agents written as assignment of a basic multi-agent systems course. We briefly present the structure of this basic course, look at ARES 2 from the perspective of an instructor, a student having to implement agents running in it, and a system developer. We also report on our experiences in using first ARES and then ARES 2 in 4 courses.

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)0.005
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 score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer SciencesSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207