MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138041254 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2002.1049608

Generalized pursuit learning schemes: new families of continuous and discretized learning automata

2002· article· en· W2138041254 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Learning automataDiscretizationComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceEstimatorAlgorithmAutomatonMachine learningMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fastest learning automata (LA) algorithms currently available fall in the family of estimator algorithms introduced by Thathachar and Sastry (1986). The pioneering work of these authors was the pursuit algorithm, which pursues only the current estimated optimal action. If this action is not the one with the minimum penalty probability, this algorithm pursues a wrong action. In this paper, we argue that a pursuit scheme that generalizes the traditional pursuit algorithm by pursuing all the actions with higher reward estimates than the chosen action, minimizes the probability of pursuing a wrong action, and is a faster converging scheme. To attest this, we present two new generalized pursuit algorithms (GPAs) and also present a quantitative comparison of their performance against the existing pursuit algorithms. Empirically, the algorithms proposed here are among the fastest reported LA to date.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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