Agent-Oriented Cooperative Smart Objects: From IoT System Design to Implementation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The future Internet of Things (IoT) is expected to enable a new and wide range of decentralized systems (from small-scale smart homes to large-scale smart cities) in which “things” are able to sense/actuate, compute, and communicate, and thus play a central and crucial role. The growing importance of such novel networked cyber-physical context demands suitable and effective computing paradigms to fulfill the various requirements of IoT systems engineering. In this paper, we propose to explore an agent-based computing paradigm to support IoT systems analysis, design, and implementation. The synergic meeting of agents with IoT makes it possible to develop smart and dynamic IoT systems of diverse scales. Our agent-oriented approach is specifically based on the agent-based cooperating smart object (ACOSO) methodology and on the related ACOSO middleware: they provide effective agent design and programming models along with efficient tools for the actual construction of an IoT system in terms of a multiagent system. A case study concerning the development of a complex IoT system, namely a Smart University Campus, is described to show the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it