MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159752377 · doi:10.1177/1059712313511648

Multi-timescale nexting in a reinforcement learning robot

2014· article· en· W2159752377 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdaptive Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceLaptopGeneralizationTemporal difference learningFunction (biology)RobotArtificial intelligenceSimple (philosophy)Representation (politics)Range (aeronautics)Bellman equationMachine learningMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term ‘nexting’ has been used by psychologists to refer to the propensity of people and many other animals to continually predict what will happen next in an immediate, local, and personal sense. The ability to ‘next’ constitutes a basic kind of awareness and knowledge of one’s environment. In this paper we present results with a robot that learns to next in real time, making thousands of predictions about sensory input signals at timescales from 0.1 to 8 seconds. Our predictions are formulated as a generalization of the value functions commonly used in reinforcement learning, where now an arbitrary function of the sensory input signals is used as a pseudo reward, and the discount rate determines the timescale. We show that six thousand predictions, each computed as a function of six thousand features of the state, can be learned and updated online ten times per second on a laptop computer, using the standard temporal-difference( λ) algorithm with linear function approximation. This approach is sufficiently computationally efficient to be used for real-time learning on the robot and sufficiently data efficient to achieve substantial accuracy within 30 minutes. Moreover, a single tile-coded feature representation suffices to accurately predict many different signals over a significant range of timescales. We also extend nexting beyond simple timescales by letting the discount rate be a function of the state and show that nexting predictions of this more general form can also be learned with substantial accuracy. General nexting provides a simple yet powerful mechanism for a robot to acquire predictive knowledge of the dynamics of its environment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.225 · 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