MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915055038

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1

2010· article· en· W2915055038 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomous agentComputer scienceTrack (disk drive)Operations researchMulti-agent systemArtificial intelligenceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS) conference series brings together researchers from around the world to share the latest advances in the field. It was initiated in 2002 as a merger of three highly successful related events: the International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS), the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS), and the International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL). The AAMAS conference series provides a marquee, high-profile 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 AAMAS 2003 in Melbourne, AAMAS 2004 in New York, AAMAS 2005 in Utrecht, AAMAS 2006 in Hakodate, AAMAS 2007 in Honolulu, AAMAS 2008 in Estoril and AAMAS 2009 in Budapest. You are now about to enter the proceedings of AAMAS 2010 as held in Toronto, Canada. In addition to the general track for the AAMAS 2010 conference, submissions were invited to two special tracks: a robotics track and a track on virtual agents The aims of these special tracks was to give researchers from these areas a strong focus and to provide a forum for discussion and debate within the encompassing structure of AAMAS, which we hoped to guarantee by appointing leaders in the field as track chairs (Michael Beetz for the robotics track, Stacy Marsella for the virtual agents track). The special track chairs managed both the reviewer allocation and the review process itself with their own chosen PC members: decisions concerning acceptance of papers were taken in discussion and in full agreement with the AAMAS 2010 Program Co-chairs. Only full paper submissions were solicited for AAMAS 2010. The general, robotics, and virtual agents tracks received 570, 57, and 58 submissions respectively, for a total of 685 submissions, a total that is slightly higher compared to the previous AAMAS. After a thorough and exciting review process, eventually 163 papers were selected for publication as full papers each of which was allocated 8 pages in the proceedings. Another 136 papers were selected as Extended Abstracts and allocated 2 pages each in the proceedings. Both full papers and extended abstracts are presented as posters during the conference.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207