Action Selection and Operant Conditioning: A Neurorobotic Implementation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action selection (AS) is thought to represent the mechanism involved by natural agents when deciding what should be the next move or action. Is there a functional elementary core sustaining this cognitive process? Could we reproduce the mechanism with an artificial agent and more specifically in a neurorobotic paradigm? Unsupervised autonomous robots may require a decision-making skill to evolve in the real world and the bioinspired approach is the avenue explored through this paper. We propose simulating an AS process by using a small spiking neural network (SNN) as the lower neural organisms, in order to control virtual and physical robots. We base our AS process on a simple central pattern generator (CPG), decision neurons, sensory neurons, and motor neurons as the main circuit components. As novelty, this study targets a specific operant conditioning (OC) context which is relevant in an AS process; choices do influence future sensory feedback. Using a simple adaptive scenario, we show the complementarity interaction of both phenomena. We also suggest that this AS kernel could be a fast track model to efficiently design complex SNN which include a growing number of input stimuli and motor outputs. Our results demonstrate that merging AS and OC brings flexibility to the behavior in generic dynamical situations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it