MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244449293 · doi:10.1109/smc.2015.33

Behavior Composition Meets Supervisory Control

2015· article· en· W2244449293 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoud Barati, Richard St‐Denis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer sciencesortArtifact (error)Software engineeringSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware agentSoftware systemComponent-based software engineeringSoftware evolutionSoftware constructionArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the evolution of software engineering since the advent of structured programming until now, software engineers are faced with tremendous challenges mostly due to the development of large software programs that behave as open systems. Multi-agent systems, which consist of multiple cooperating intelligent agents within an environment, form a particular class of such systems. This sort of software program, which carries out operations by repeatedly interacting with dynamic environments, has become more and more complex with the emergence of ubiquitous communication and computing technologies that constantly grow and evolve. Agent-oriented computing constitutes an appealing solution for coping with this level of complexity because systems can be built by combining agents. The automated composition of software artifacts to generate new ones may rest on recent progress in artificial intelligence and automatic control that has its roots in the tradition of program synthesis. The goal is to provide software engineers with effective methods in which the planning and control of software actions are integral parts of composition operators, together with synthesis procedures that automatically generate an execution strategy that governs the discrete dynamics of the composed artifact in order to satisfy given requirements. This approach ensures a higher degree of safety because it relies on formal methods. This paper shows how the behavior composition problem issued from the artificial intelligence community can be solved within the framework of the supervisory control theory with the aim to benefit from all of its rich facets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207