Position Paper: Emergent Machina Sapiens Urge Rethinking Multi-Agent Paradigms in Critical Infrastructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents capable of autonomous learning and independent decision-making hold great promise for addressing complex challenges across various critical infrastructure domains, including transportation, energy systems, and manufacturing. However, the surge in the design and deployment of AI systems, driven by various stakeholders with distinct and unaligned objectives, introduces a crucial challenge: How can uncoordinated AI systems coexist and evolve harmoniously in shared environments without creating chaos or compromising safety? To address this, we advocate for a fundamental rethinking of existing multi-agent frameworks, such as multi-agent systems and game theory, which are largely limited to predefined rules and static objective structures. We posit that AI agents should be empowered to adjust their objectives dynamically, make compromises, form coalitions, and safely compete or cooperate through evolving relationships and social feedback. Through two case studies in critical infrastructure applications, we call for a shift toward the emergent, self-organizing, and context-aware nature of these multi-agentic AI systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".