MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061768116 · doi:10.1145/1232425.1232438

Dimensions of complexity of intelligent agents

2006· article· en· W2061768116 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
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntelligent agentValue (mathematics)Data scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to provide a framework for understanding the construction of intelligent agents. This is used to explain the history of AI, and provide a roadmap of future research. Research has progressed by making simplifying assumptions about the representations of the agents or about the environments the agents act in. In particular, we present a number of dimensions of simplifying assumptions that have been made. For each of these dimensions, there is a simplified case and progressively more complex cases. We argue that an intelligent agent needs the complex value in each of these dimensions (i.e., to simultaneously give up many simplifying assumptions). However these dimensions interact in complex ways. Much of the recent history can be seen as understanding the interaction of these dimensions.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207