Reactive planning as a motivational source in a behavior-based architecture
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavior-based architectures use behaviors as building blocks for decision-making and action execution processes. Behaviors are distributed and evaluated in parallel for the control of the robot, taking real-time inputs from sensory data and sending real-time commands to effectors. No centralized components exist in these architectures, each module carrying out its own strategy independently, making an overall behavior emerge from the interaction between the concurrently executed modules and the environment. In this paper, we discuss the use of a reactive hierarchical task network (HTN) planner in a behavior-based robot architecture. The planner in this architecture is not a central component on which everything else relies on, but acts as one of the motivational modules recommending tasks to be executed and influencing the selection and configuration of behaviors. The planning module allows the behavior-based architecture to deal with tasks with priorities, flexible time constraints and on-line planning using a simple but very effective reactive planning strategy. We demonstrate our approach in the context of making a robot attend a conference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it