A Minimization-Based Approach to Iterated Multi-Agent Belief Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate minimization-based approaches to iterated belief change in multi-agent systems. A network of agents is represented by an undirected graph, where propositional formulas are associated with vertices. Information is shared between vertices via a procedure where each vertex minimizes disagreement with other vertices in the graph. Each iterative approach takes into account the proximity between vertices, with the underlying assumption that information from nearby sources is given higher priority than information from more distant sources. We have identified two main approaches to iteration: in the first approach, a vertex takes into account the information at its immediate neighbours only, and information from more distant vertices is propagated via iteration; in the second approach, a vertex first takes into account information from distance-1 neighbours, then from distance-2 neighbours, and so on, in a prioritized fashion. There prove to be three distinct ways to define the second approach, so in total we have four types of iteration. We define these types formally, find relationships between them, and investigate their basic logical properties. We also implemented the approaches in a software system called Equibel.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".