MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168482931 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2003.1226137

Metrics for agent-based software development

2004· article· en· W2168482931 on OpenAlexaff
Behrouz H. Far, Tom Wanyama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFunction pointCohesion (chemistry)HeuristicsMeasure (data warehouse)Software engineeringMulti-agent systemSoftware developmentSoftware metricSoftwareArtificial intelligenceData miningSoftware qualityProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In software engineering community an increasing effort has been put into design and development of multiagent systems (MAS). However, agent system development is currently dominated by informal guidelines, heuristics and inspirations rather than formal principles and well defined engineering techniques. In this paper we define a set of objective and subjective metrics to measure the complexity of MAS. The subjective metrics is a modified version of function point (FP) including the algorithmic complexity and knowledge complexity factor. The objective metrics is a measure for nearly-decomposability, measured by the communicative cohesion. Such metrics can be used to select the best architecture for the MAS. A methodology for agent-based software development based on such metrics is proposed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207