MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518923210

Planification optimale discrete et continue: un joueur de billard autonome optimise

2012· article· fr· W1518923210 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pierre Dussault, Philippe Mahey, Jean-François Landry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le sujet de these de ce doctorat consiste en l'elaboration de methodes pour la planification dans les domaines avec aspects continus, discrets et stochastiques. Cette classe de probleme, bien qu'assez generale, ne comporte pas pour l'instant de solution efficace et est souvent traitee de facon discrete plutot que continue afin d'y appliquer les approches existantes. L'aspect stochastique apporte une difficulte supplementaire a la recherche d'un plan optimal, et rend le probleme d'autant plus interessant. L'ensemble des approches et methodes proposees dans cette these sont avant tout appliquees au jeu du billard, tout en gardant dans l'esprit qu'une generalisation permettrait son application a d'auties problemes similaires. En un premier lieu, une classification de ce type de probleme par rapport aux recherches existantes sera effectuee, suivie d'une courte revue des approches actuelles possiblement applicables pour la recherche d'une solution acceptable. Un modele general developpe dans le contexte du jeu du billard sera presente, ainsi que quelques indices sur la facon de le resoudre a l'aide de la programmation dynamique. Deuxiemement, un modele pour une approche a deux-couches sera propose, utilisant un controleur robuste profitant de la finesse qui peut etre exploitee des techniques d'optimisation non-lineaire. Finalement, le modele a deux-couches sera raffine et quelques heuristiques de planifications seront proposee, afin de guider le controleur de facon a determiner un plan efficace. On terminera a l'aide d'une synthese des resultats et une discussion sur les perspectives futures. Mots-cles: Optimisation, Controle Optimal, Modelisation, Planification, Intelligence Artificielle, Billard, Robotique, Programmation Dynamique

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207