MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116857805 · doi:10.1177/1059712314526261

Decentralized strategy selection with learning automata for multiple pursuer–evader games

2014· article· en· W2116857805 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

VenueAdaptive Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePursuersortTask (project management)Markov decision processLearning automataAutomatonSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Theoretical computer scienceMarkov processMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multiple pursuers and evaders game may be represented as a Markov game. Using this modeling, one may interpret each player as a decentralized unit that has to work independently in order to complete a task. This is a distributed multiagent decision problem and several different possible solutions have already been proposed. However, most solutions require some sort of central coordination. In this paper, we intend to model each player as a learning automaton and let them evolve and adapt in order to solve the difficult problem they have at hand. We are also going to show that, using the proposed learning process, the players’ policies will converge to an equilibrium point. Simulations of such scenarios with multiple pursuers and evaders are presented in order to show the feasibility of the approach.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.385
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