Adaptive Collaboration With Training Plan Considering Role Correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on role-based collaboration (RBC), group role assignment (GRA) optimizes a team’s overall performance by assigning the most appropriate individual agents from the team’s viewpoint based on agents’ role-playing abilities. As an extension of GRA, GRA with a training plan (GRATP) deals with the impact of training on team management. Considering the correlation between roles, the training of one agent on one role also affects the performance of the agent in other roles. Moreover, in the adaptive collaboration (AC) problem, the training time also affects significantly the agent’s ability, as an agent’s ability changes over time. However, the existing GRATP models fail to consider these factors in the collaboration process. Therefore, we aim to address the role-correlation-based adaptive GRATP (RCA-GRATP) in this article. This article contributes two aspects to the literature on AC. 1) RCA-GRATP problem is abstracted based on RBC and GRA. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first article that explicitly considers role correlation in the RBC problems. 2) A comprehensive formalization of RCA-GRATP and two solving algorithms for diverse situations are proposed to solve the formalized problems. Experiments are carried out to verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms in diverse scenarios.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".