MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133647765 · doi:10.1109/wi.2006.134

Privacy Preserving Multiagent Probabilistic Reasoning about Ambiguous Contexts: A Case Study

2006· article· en· W2133647765 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangdong An, Dawn Jutla, Nick Cercone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversitySaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicInferenceContext (archaeology)Bayesian networkMulti-agent systemRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Ubiquitous computingIntelligent agentHuman–computer interactionData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contexts in ubiquitous environments, either sensed or interpreted, are usually ambiguous. However, to provide context-aware services and applications, agents in the environments need to have an as clear as possible understanding of their contexts. Ambiguous contexts can be made clearer by agents using inference based on their domain knowledge, local and global evidence. Bayesian networks have been proposed to represent and reason about uncertain contexts under the single agent paradigm. In distributed multiagent systems, multiply sectioned Bayesian networks (MSBNs) provide a coherent framework for distributed multiagent probabilistic inference, where agents' privacy is respected. In this paper, we propose to apply MSBNs to uncertain contexts representation and reasoning in ubiquitous environments

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207