A comparison of organization-centered and agent-centered multi-agent systems
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
Whereas most classical multi-agent systems have the agent in center, there has recently been a development towards focusing more on the organization of the system, thereby allowing the designer to focus on what the system goals are, without considering how the goals should be fulfilled. We have developed and evaluated two teams of agents for a variant of the well-known Bomberman computer game. One team is based on the basic Jason system, which is an implementation in Java of an extension of the logic-based agent-oriented programming language AgentSpeak. The other team is based on the organizational model Moise+, which is combined with Jason in the middleware called J-Moise+. We have investigated whether taking the organization-oriented approach had any clear advantages to the classical way of implementing multi-agent systems. Although not decisive the investigation did indicate that the agent-oriented approach has a number of advantages when it comes to game-like scenarios with just a few different character types.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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