MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164569390 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.031

Modelling Multi-agent Systems with Category Theory

2015· article· en· W2164569390 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableComputer scienceCategory theoryConstructiveProof theoryProperty (philosophy)Constructive proofTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsMathematical proofProgramming languageEpistemologyDiscrete mathematicsProcess (computing)Pure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to formalize the connection between two widely separated branches of knowledge: multi-agent systems (MAS) and category theory. The relationship of category theory to multi-agent systems is as follows: (1) agents and their relations are represented as categorical concepts; and (2) verification of system properties becomes constructive proof in category theory. Proposing a categorical approach to specify MAS properties requires a deep understanding of both the system and these properties in order to be able to abstract and reason about them in a categorical framework. The paper uses the MAS fault-tolerance property as an application of the categorical proof.

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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.193 · 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