Creating a Modeling Language Based on a New Metamodel for Adaptive Normative Software Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for creating increasingly dynamic, autonomous and proactive software systems is challenging for the traditional Multi-agent Systems (MASs) approaches. Such requirement has given rise to adaptive software agents approaches. At the same time, norm is an essential and challenging feature that still tends to be addressed in adaptive MAS. In fact, norms to regulate agent behavior is still a vague concept that has not been properly investigated in terms of modeling and implementation. Even though many researchers have proposed modeling languages to deal with different abstractions, these languages fail to support the modeling of abstractions, such as adaptation and norms. Even more severe is the fact that little has been done to support the systematic design of Adaptive Normative Multi-Agent Systems (ANMASs). To facilitate the design and development of ANMASs, this paper presents a new metamodel, as well as language support, as means to provide tools to enable software developers. The proposed metamodel fosters a better understanding of the way agents are able to change their behaviors to deal with norms and captures interactions between agent’s norms and adaptation. To this end, our research is organized into five steps: (i) a literature review to identify the limitations of existing approaches related to ANMAS modeling; (ii) propose a new metamodel to support adaptative and normative concepts; (iii) propose a new language for modeling ANMASs; (iv) perform a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the proposed language using a real case scenario, and (v) an empirical evaluation. The proposed metamodel and its associated modeling language advances the state of the art in modeling MASs and the approach is assessed in terms of correctness, time and difficulty. Our initial results revealed that our approach can be feasibly applied in a real world application, and is less difficult to apply and requires less time in comparison with a traditional approach. As software applications become more dynamic and adaptive, we believe it is essential to support developers to model MASs with abstractions such as adaptive agents, norms and their relationships. Such information can be foundational to steer future research on modeling adaptive agents capable of understanding and dealing with norms and adaptation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".