MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132917408 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2009.32

MA-DBN: Modeling Cooperative Agents for Approximate Online Monitoring

2009· article· en· W2132917408 on OpenAlexaff
Karen H. Jin, Dan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBounded functionDynamic Bayesian networkDomain (mathematical analysis)Multi-agent systemDistributed computingMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceBayesian networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperative agents often need to reason about the states of a large and complex uncertain domain that evolves over time. Since exact calculation is usually impractical, we aim at providing a modeling tool that supports approximate online monitoring in such settings. Our proposed framework, the multi-agent dynamic Bayesian networks (MA-DBNs), models the dynamics of a group of cooperative agents approximately by utilizing weak interaction among them. Each dynamic agent maintains an individual chain of evolution, which enables a factorized and more efficient calculation of cooperative online monitoring. Meanwhile, agents are organized by an underlying hypertree structure to facilitate inter-agent communication. The error resulting from our model approximation is expected to be bounded over time, and a re-factorization method is proposed to improve the approximation quality. Moreover, MA-DBNs are flexible in admitting existing BN monitoring techniques for each agent's local evolution. As an example, we present an algorithm of distributed particle filters under our proposed model.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207