A proxy-based communication protocol for mobile agents: protocols and performance
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
Although the mobile agent paradigm provides great potential advantages ever traditional approaches in distributed computing applications, there are still several issues to be addressed before the technology can be widely accepted. The performance of the communication protocol is one of the critical issues in mobile agent systems. A practical communication protocol for mobile agents must satisfy three basic requirements: location transparency, reliability and efficiency. Although many communication protocols have been proposed for mobile agent systems and most of them are location transparent, these protocols usually compromise some aspects of reliability and efficiency. In this research we develop a communication scheme for efficient location tracking of agents and reliable message delivery in mobile agent systems by using a proxy-based scheme. The location update and message delivery protocols are developed and shown to be reliable even when agents migrate during message delivery. A simulation model is developed to estimate the performance relative to a (nonproxy-based) home-server protocol. Sensitivity analysis is used to reveal the important circumstances (domain/agent dimensions and exogenous demand/movement characteristics) for efficient communication performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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