Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS) conference series brings together researchers from around the world to share the latest advances in the field. It is the premier forum for research in the theory and practice of autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. AAMAS 2002, the first of the series, was held in Bologna, followed by Melbourne (2003), New York (2004), Utrecht (2005), Hakodate (2006), Honolulu (2007), Estoril (2008), Budapest (2009), Toronto (2010), Taipei (2011), Valencia (2012), Saint Paul (2013), and Paris (2014). This volume constitutes the proceedings of AAMAS 2015, the fourteenth conference in the series, held in Istanbul in May 2015. In line with previous editions, AAMAS 2015 attracted submissions for a general track and four special tracks: Innovative Applications, Robotics, Virtual Agents and Humans, and the Blue Sky Ideas track. The special tracks were chaired by leaders in their corresponding fields: Amal El Fallah Seghrouchni and Milind Tambe chaired the Innovative Applications track, Alessandro Farinelli and Gal Kaminka the Robotics track, Catholijn Jonker and Rui Prada the Virtual Agents and Humans track, and Victor Lesser the Blue Sky Ideas track. The special track chairs were responsible for appointing the Programme Committee (PC) members and the Senior Programme Committee members (SPC) for their tracks, and they made acceptance/rejection decisions for their tracks in consultation with Programme Chairs based on input provided by the track PC and SPC. Members of the PC and SPC of the special tracks also reviewed papers on topics of their expertise submitted to the general track. Full paper submissions (8 pages plus bibliographic references) and Blue Sky Ideas paper submissions (4 pages plus references) were solicited for AAMAS 2015. Some of the full paper submissions were accepted as extended abstracts (2 pages). The papers were selected by means of a thorough review and discussion process, which included an opportunity for authors to respond to reviewer comments. All SPC members followed and contributed to the technical discussions on the papers they were overseeing. Full papers were presented orally in 15-minute slots; all extended abstracts and, optionally, full papers were presented as posters during the conference. Out of the 670 submissions, 395 (59%) had a student as the primary author, 108 of these (27%) were accepted as full papers, and a further 91 (23%) were accepted as extended abstracts. The proceedings also contain 30 Demonstration papers, 29 Doctoral Consortium papers, as well as abstracts of the invited talks and details of some of the awards given. The overall conference programme also had 26 workshops and 8 tutorials, although that material is not included in the proceedings.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".