MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383650222

Task Allocation Algorithm Based on SPSB Auction

2009· article· en· W2383650222 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrocomputer applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElevator Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Auction algorithmCore (optical fiber)Multi-agent systemAlgorithmMathematical optimizationOperations researchCommon value auctionArtificial intelligenceAuction theoryMicroeconomicsRevenue equivalenceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Task allocation is the core problem of MAS research,reasonable task allocation can improve system performance.How to get a reasonable distribution result is a concern of the Multi-Agent task allocation.Therefore,some researchers suggest many methods,but rarely considering agent capabilities and preferences.This paper presents a task allocation algorithm based on SPSB aution,emphasizes capabilities and preferences of agent,and embodies the self-interest characteristic of agent.With multi-agent transporting army supplies for background,this paper make a simulation experiment,and the results show that the algorithm is reasonable and effective,superior ReA-MRTA [4] algorithm.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.180 · 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