MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139738233 · doi:10.1109/cig.2007.368124

Toward a Competitive Pool Playing Robot: Is Computational Intelligence Needed to Play Robotic Pool?

2007· article· en· W2139738233 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Greenspan, Joseph Lam, Will Leckie, Marc Godard, Imran Zaidi, Ken Anderson, D. Dupuis, Sam Jordan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdversaryRobotArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputational intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the development of Deep Green, an intelligent robotic system that is currently in development to play competitive pool against a proficient human opponent. The design philosophy and the main system components are presented, and the progress to date is summarized. We also address a common misconception about the game of pool, i.e. that it is purely a game of physical skill, requiring little or no intelligence or strategy. We explain some of the difficulties in developing a vision-based system with a high degree of positional accuracy. We further demonstrate that even if perfect accuracy were possible, it is still beneficial and necessary to play strategically.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207