# Research and Application of a Multi-Agent-Based Intelligent Mine Gas State Decision-Making System
## 5 Experiments
### Evaluation of Orchestration Algorithms  
To validate the effectiveness of the hybrid agent orchestration algorithm, a comparative experiment was designed to compare the hybrid algorithm with centralized and distributed algorithms. The evaluation utilized the GPT-40 model and employed a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model to quantitatively assess the performance of different orchestration algorithms. During the evaluation process, the following indicators were established, and corresponding weights were assigned to each indicator:  
* Alarm Judgment Response Time (Weight: 0.10): The average response time of the system to alarm requests. Scores are calculated based on the ratio of the actual response time to the maximum preset time--the shorter the response time, the higher the score. Figure 7: Radar chart of expert review scores. * Judgment Accuracy (Weight: 0.30): The accuracy of the Gas Alarm Assessment. Scores are directly proportional to accuracy--the higher the accuracy, the higher the score. * Report Generation Time (Weight: 0.10): The average time required to generate a complete report. Scores are calculated based on the ratio of the actual generation time to the maximum preset time--the shorter the generation time, the higher the score. * Overall Report Quality (Weight: 0.30): The quality of the report is assessed through expert scoring or user feedback. Scores are directly proportional to the actual ratings of the report--the higher the rating, the higher the score. * Token Utilization (Weight: 0.20): The number of tokens consumed by the system to process the requests. Scores are calculated based on the ratio of the actual token usage to the maximum preset token amount--the fewer the tokens used, the higher the score. The formula for calculating the comprehensive score is as follows: \[S=\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}\cdot s_{i},\] (8) where \(S\) is the comprehensive score, \(w_{i}\) is the weight of the \(i\)-th indicator, and \(s_{i}\) is the score of the \(i\)-th indicator. To comprehensively evaluate the performance of the multi-agent hybrid orchestration algorithm compared to distributed and centralized algorithms, simulation experiments based on a virtual environment were conducted. This environment simulates the performance of different algorithms in handling alarm requests. The maximum preset alarm judgment response time was set to 40 s, the maximum preset generation time to 120 s, and the maximum token count to 30,000. By analyzing the experimental data under different orchestration algorithms, the results are presented in Table 5.  
The final score calculation results are as follows: the comprehensive score of the distributed algorithm is 0.7674, the comprehensive score of the centralized algorithm is 0.6752, and the comprehensive score of the hybrid algorithm is 0.7921. There are significant differences in the performance of different orchestration algorithms across various indicators. Specifically, the distributed algorithm is fast and consumes less but has lower fault tolerance and correctness rates; the centralized algorithm has high fault tolerance and correctness rates but is slow and consumes more; the hybrid algorithm balances the advantages and disadvantages of the first two. In summary, the effectiveness of the hybrid agent orchestration algorithm in mine gas monitoring has been validated, providing a theoretical basis and empirical support for future research. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Orchestration Algorithm** & **Alarm Judgment Response Time (s)** & **Judgment Accuracy (\%)** & **Report Generation Time (s)** & **Comprehensive Report Quality (1–5)** & **Report Generation Time (1–5)** & **Report Generation Time (count)** \\ \hline Distributed Algorithm & 8.78 & 88.7 & 34.32 & 4 & 19,873 \\ Centralized Algorithm & 17.15 & 96.3 & 54.47 & 4.2 & 23,837 \\ Hybrid Algorithm & 10.23 & 97.2 & 41.28 & 4.5 & 21,984 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}