MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Generative AI Reliability via Agentic AI in 6G-Enabled Edge Computing

2025· preprint· en· W4407366508 on OpenAlexaff
Laha Ale, Scott A. King, Ning Zhang, Huanlai Xing

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarReliability (semiconductor)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerative modelMachine learningPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has revolutionized various applications by producing coherent and contextually relevant text. However, despite their advancements, LLMs are prone to hallucinations-instances where the AI generates inaccurate or fabricated information. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a technique to enhance GenAI by integrating external knowledge sources beyond the model's training data. While RAG improves factual grounding, it alone cannot fully eliminate hallucinations. To address this limitation, agentic workflows that incorporate external tools such as APIs, search engines, and self-reflective mechanisms offer a promising solution. These workflows enable models to iteratively assess and refine their outputs, thereby reducing errors and enhancing factual accuracy. This paper presents a novel framework that combines agentic workflows with RAG within 6G networks to achieve more reliable generative AI by deploying autonomous agents that reflect on outputs and leverage real-time knowledge from external sources to improve response quality and accuracy. We explore the deployment of these workflows in 6G-enabled edge environments, facilitating scalable, real-time knowledge integration and model refinement. Our framework addresses current limitations in RAG-enhanced services by utilizing 6G edge intelligence for data fusion, dynamic knowledge base updates, and customizable AI service delivery. Through a multi-agent system comprising generator and critic agents, we effectively reduce hallucinations via iterative self-criticism, paving the way for more reliable and accurate generative AI services across diverse applications.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207