MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119516456 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557144

Mathematical analysis of agent swarm behavior in an agent-based electronic health record system

2006· article· en· W2119516456 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Tse, Raman Paranjape, Luigi Benedicenti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwarm behaviourComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Multi-agent systemDistributed computingAutonomous agentMobile agentSimple (philosophy)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

System behavior, in a multi-agent system, can be difficult to predict and often, unexpected system behaviors will occur which lead to poor system performance. These unexpected system behaviors result from unforeseen group actions of agent groups, and agent-group behavior that is not directly coded by the agent designers. This paper presents a mathematical model to analyze agent swarm behavior in an agent-based system. Our mathematical model is composed of a set of differential equations, which will be the main focus of our study into agent dynamics and complex systems. We demonstrate our mathematical model by applying it to an agent-based health record system (ABHRS). The ABHRS is an electronic health record system which is enhanced using mobile agent technology. The main idea of the ABHRS is to allow patient health records to autonomously move through a computer network uniting scattered and distributed data into one consistent and complete data set or patient health record. ABHRS is an example of multi-agent swarm system, which composed of many simple agents and a system that is able to self-organized. A prototype ABHRS was developed in this work using TEEMA (TRLabs execution environment for mobile agents) platforms and experimental results using this prototype are presented. Our experimental results suggest that the ABHRS will in fact have predictable attributes such as growing clusters of mobile agents at Doctor, Pharmacy and Lab sites. In addition, our numerical (experimental) results closely match those of our theoretical model for the system

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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