MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157321916 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2005.863379

Parameter learning from stochastic teachers and stochastic compulsive liars

2006· article· en· W2157321916 on OpenAlexaff
B. John Oommen, G. Raghunath, Benjamin Kuipers

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOracleLearning automataComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceInterval (graph theory)Mechanism (biology)AutomatonMachine learningMathematicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers a general learning problem akin to the field of learning automata (LA) in which the learning mechanism attempts to learn from a stochastic teacher or a stochastic compulsive liar. More specifically, unlike the traditional LA model in which LA attempts to learn the optimal action offered by the Environment (also here called the "Oracle"), this paper considers the problem of the learning mechanism (robot, an LA, or in general, an algorithm) attempting to learn a "parameter" within a closed interval. The problem is modeled as follows: The learning mechanism is trying to locate an unknown point on a real interval by interacting with a stochastic Environment through a series of informed guesses. For each guess, the Environment essentially informs the mechanism, possibly erroneously (i.e., with probability p), which way it should move to reach the unknown point. When the probability of a correct response is p > 0.5, the Environment is said to be informative, and thus the case of learning from a stochastic teacher. When this probability p < 0.5, the Environment is deemed deceptive, and is called a stochastic compulsive liar. This paper describes a novel learning strategy by which the unknown parameter can be learned in both environments. These results are the first reported results, which are applicable to the latter scenario. The most significant contribution of this paper is that the proposed scheme is shown to operate equally well, even when the learning mechanism is unaware of whether the Environment ("Oracle") is informative or deceptive. The learning strategy proposed herein, called CPL-AdS, partitions the search interval into d subintervals, evaluates the location of the unknown point with respect to these subintervals using fast-converging E-optimal LRI LA, and prunes the search space in each iteration by eliminating at least one partition. The CPL-AdS algorithm is shown to provably converge to the unknown point with an arbitrary degree of accuracy with probability as close to unity as desired. Comprehensive experimental results confirm the fast and accurate convergence of the search for a wide range of values for the Environment's feedback accuracy parameter p, and thus has numerous potential applications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207