MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027562469 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2011.86

A Case-Based Reasoning Framework for Developing Agents Using Learning by Observation

2011· article· en· W2027562469 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Variety (cybernetics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceObstacle avoidanceHuman–computer interactionObstacleRobotTask analysisMachine learningMobile robotEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most realistic environments are complex, partially observable and impose real-time constraints on agents operating within them. This paper describes a framework that allows agents to learn by observation in such environments. When learning by observation, agents observe an expert performing a task and learn to perform the same task based on those observations. Our framework aims to allow agents to learn in a variety of domains (physical or virtual) regardless of the behaviour or goals of the observed expert. To achieve this we ensure that there is a clear separation between the central reasoning system and any domain-specific information. We present case studies in the domains of obstacle avoidance, robotic arm control, simulated soccer and Tetris.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207