MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143883571

High-level robot programming in dynamic and incompletely known environments

2005· article· en· W2143883571 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicRobotControl (management)Perspective (graphical)Situation calculusMobile robotArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis advocates the usefulness and practicality of a logic-based approach to AI and in particular to high-level control of mobile robots. The contribution of the research work reported here is twofold: 1) the development of theoretical frameworks that account for uncertainty and unmodeled dynamics in an environment where an acting agent has to achieve certain goals and 2) the implementation of the developed ideas on a mobile robot. We have elaborated the approach to designing efficient and reliable controllers in Golog following two different perspectives on the environment where the control program is supposed to operate. According to one perspective, investigated in Chapter 4, the agent has a logical model of the world, but there is no probabilistic information about the environment where the agent is planning to act, and the agent is not capable or has no time for acquiring probabilities of different effects of its actions. In this case, the uncertainty and dynamics of the environment can be accounted only by observing the real outcomes of actions executed by the agent, by determining possible discrepancies between the observed outcomes and the effects expected according to the logical model of the world and then by recovering, if necessary, from the

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207