MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486398123 · doi:10.4018/ijats.2015070103

Assessing the Effect of Aspect Refactoring on Multi-Agent Applications

2015· article· en· W2486398123 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 Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode refactoringComputer scienceModularity (biology)Profiling (computer programming)Separation of concernsSoftware engineeringDistributed computingFocus (optics)Multi-agent systemObject-oriented programmingSoftwareProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi Agent Systems (MAS) are increasingly gaining importance as a powerful paradigm to designing and implementing distributed applications. However, existing multi-agent applications are developed without considering the separation of non-functional concerns from the functional ones. This makes the implementation, comprehension and maintenance of multi-agent applications hard tasks. Aspect-Oriented Refactoring (AOR) is a promising technique for improving modularity and reducing complexity of existing object oriented software systems by encapsulating crosscutting concerns. The authors present, in this paper, a new dynamic approach for investigating empirically the effect of AOR on MAS applications. They focus, particularly, on the effect of AOR on agent behavior in terms of communication. The proposed approach is supported by a multi-agent profiling tool working on AgentFactory platform.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.277 · 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