MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156499654 · doi:10.1109/itng.2008.113

Using Trustworthy and Referee Agents to Secure Multi-Agent Systems

2008· article· en· W2156499654 on OpenAlexaff
Jamal Bentahar, Babak Khosravifar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityTrustworthinessComputer scienceMulti-agent systemComputer securityWork (physics)Value (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security is a crucial factor in multi-agent systems where agents dynamically leave and enter the system. In this paper, we continue our work on security for agent-based systems by proposing a new trust model allowing agents to decide about a target agent. The model combines two techniques: using reports provided by the trustworthy agents regarding to direct and indirect interaction histories, and using reports provided by the referee agents in the form of recommendations. In addition, after a periodic time, the actual behavior of the target agent is checked against the provided information by others to adjust their credibility. The paper considers different parameters for computing trust, which is represented as a quantitative value.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207