MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183399303 · doi:10.5555/776816.776943

Software engineering for large-scale multi-agent systems - SELMAS'2003

2003· article· en· W2183399303 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

VenueInternational Conference on Software Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaintainabilityComputer scienceSoftware engineeringReusabilityInteroperabilityScalabilitySoftware developmentScale (ratio)Systems engineeringSoftware systemSoftwareEngineeringDatabaseWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objects and agents are abstractions that exhibit points of similarity, but the development of multi-agent systems (MASs) poses other challenges to Software Engineering since software agents are inherently more complex entities. In addition, a large MAS needs to satisfy multiple stringent requirements such as reliability, trustability, security, interoperability, scalability, reusability, and maintainability. This workshop brings together researchers and practitioners to discuss the current state of the art and the future research directions in software engineering for large-scale MASs. A particular interest is to understand those issues in the agent technology that make it difficult and/or improve the production of complex distributed systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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