MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MARKER-AUGMENTED ROBOT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION

2007· article· en· W2176512423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amol D. Mali

Bibliographic record

VenueControl and Intelligent Systems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionRobotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been an increasing interest in developing computational theories of autonomous robots. However, the previous work has focused on intelligent modifications to internal computational structure of a robot, ignoring modifications to external environments. Our work is the first to formalize the modification of an environment by an introduction of markers that replace the internal state. Replacing internal state by addition of markers increases communication through the world. Use of markers has been shown to improve the effectiveness of robots at American Association of Artificial Intelligence robot competitions and RoboCup competitions. We report on the semantics of markers using their logical description and the internal state they replace. We introduce several properties of markers and marker sets like redundancy, mutual exclusivity and efficiency. We show how the stimuli of behaviours can be modified when markers are introduced to replace internal state. We also report on a semi-automatic algorithm that allows robots to place markers in their world. We show how the algorithm can be extended for obtaining a higher replacement of internal state and for handling an autonomous removal of markers. We provide several guidelines for effectively introducing markers in a robot's world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueControl and Intelligent SystemsSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207