MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100969324 · doi:10.1109/tac.2003.812780

Minimal communication in a distributed discrete-event system

2003· article· en· W2100969324 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatonComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)Distributed computingFinite-state machineMulti-agent systemState (computer science)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with distributed discrete-event systems, in which agents (or local sites) are required to communicate in order to perform some specified tasks. Associated with each agent is a finite-state automaton that captures the required tasks to be performed at that site. The problem considered is that each agent must be able to distinguish between the states of its automaton. To help it disambiguate states, an agent uses a combination of direct observation (obtained from sensor readings available to that agent) and communicated information (obtained from sensor readings available to another agent). Since communication may be costly, a strategy to minimize communication between sites is developed. The complexity of the solution reflects the interdependence of the agents' communication protocols. That is, the decision to communicate the occurrence of an event relies on which event sequences are indistinguishable to an agent, which, in turn, is a result of what has already been communicated to that agent.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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