Multiagent Coordination Techniques for Complex Environments: The Case of a Fleet of Combat Ships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of agent and multiagent techniques to assist humans in their daily routines has been increasing for many years, notably in command and control C2 systems. In this context, we propose using multiagent planning and coordination techniques for resources management in C2 systems. The particular problem we studied is the design of a decision-support for antiair warfare on combat ships. In this paper, we refer to the specific case of several combat ships defending against incoming threats and where coordination of their respective resources is a complex problem of capital importance. Efficient coordination mechanisms between the different combat ships are then important to avoid redundancy in engagements and inefficient defence caused by the conflicting actions. To this end, we present four different coordination mechanisms based on task sharing. Three of these mechanisms are communication-based: central coordination, contract Net coordination, and ~ Brown coordination, while the last one is a zone defence coordination and is based on conventions. Finally, we present the results obtained while simulating these various mechanisms
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it