A cooperative strategy for diagnosing the root causes of quality requirement violations in multiagent systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many modern software systems are built as a set of autonomous software components (also called agents) that collaborate with each other and are situated in an environment. To keep these multiagent systems operational under abnormal circumstances, it is crucial to make them resilient. Existing solutions are often centralised and rely on information manually provided by experts at design time, making such solutions rigid and limiting the autonomy and adaptability of the system. In this work, we propose a cooperative strategy focused on the identification of the root causes of quality requirement violations in multiagent systems. This strategy allows agents to cooperate with each other in order to identify whether these violations come from service providers, associated components, or the communication infrastructure. From this identification process, agents are able to adapt their behaviour in order to mitigate and solve existing abnormalities with the aim of normalising system operation. This strategy consists of an interaction protocol that, together with the proposed algorithms, allow agents playing the protocol roles to diagnose problems to be repaired. We evaluate our proposal with the implementation of a service-oriented system. The results demonstrate that our solution enables the correct identification of different sources of failures, favouring the selection of the most suitable actions to be taken to overcome abnormal situations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".