MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409605032 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-343

Research on Deep Reinforcement Learning-based Coordinated Control Strategy for Multi-Intelligent Bodies under Software System Architecture

2025· article· en· W4409605032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReinforcement learningArchitectureComputer scienceControl (management)Control softwareComputer architectureSoftwareReinforcementArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringEngineeringOperating systemStructural engineeringHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's society, a single intelligent body does not meet the needs of complex tasks, and coordinated control of multiple intelligences becomes an important solution.In this regard, this paper carries out the research on the coordinated control strategy of multiple intelligences supported by deep reinforcement learning technology.Aiming at the problems of uneven task distribution and unsatisfactory decision consistency arising from the collaborative decision making of multiple intelligences under the software system architecture, a hierarchical multi-intelligence collaborative decision-making algorithm based on the AC framework is proposed to realize the information exchange and decision-making collaboration among intelligences, so as to improve the efficiency of coordinated control.However, with the increase of the number of multi-intelligents, the algorithm will have the problem of upper and lower level non-smoothness, in order to solve this problem, a multiintelligents collaborative algorithm based on role parameter sharing is designed.Finally, the research scheme of this paper is evaluated and analyzed from multiple dimensions.When the number of intelligences increases by 5, the reward value of this paper's algorithm does not show a decreasing trend, which indicates that this paper's algorithm is able to handle the control coordination problem in the case of a small number of intelligences.When the number of intelligences increases by 15, the original method shows a decreasing trend, while in the multi-intelligence body collaboration algorithm based on the sharing of role parameters, the performance is very bright, which ensures the coordinated control effect of multi-intelligence bodies under the software system architecture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207