Iterative Role Negotiation via the Bilevel GRA++ With Decision Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role negotiation (RN) is situated at the initial stage of the role-based collaboration (RBC) methodology and is independent of the subsequent agent evaluation and role assignment (RA) processes. RN is to determine the roles and the resource requirements for each role. In existing RBC-related research, RN is assumed to be static. This means that the roles and the resource requirements for each role are predetermined by decision-makers. However, the resources allocated to each role can vary. At this time, iterative RN outcomes will have different RA results. There may not be a direct dominant relationship between different RA outcomes, especially when solving group role assignment (GRA) with multiple objectives (GRA++) problems, which makes it even more complex. To address these concerns, we introduce the original bilevel GRA++ (BGRA++) model. Specifically, at the lower level of BGRA++, a strategy is designed for quantifying iterative RNs. For the upper level, we introduce the novel GRA-NSGA-II algorithm for the RA process. Finally, we introduce the concept of decision tolerance to assist decision-makers in selecting the optimal solution from the multiple RNs. Last, simulation experiments are conducted to verify the robustness and practicability of the proposed method. Comparisons and discussions show that the proposed solution is highly competitive for solving the GRA++ problem with iterative RN.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".