Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis we study a reasoning module for agents that have cognitive abilities, such as memory, perception, action, and are expected to function autonomously for long periods of time. The module provides the ability to reason about action and change using the language of the situation calculus and variants of the basic action theories. The main focus of this thesis is on the logical problem of progressing an action theory.\n\nFirst, we investigate the conjecture by Lin and Reiter that a practical first-order definition of progression is not appropriate for the general case. We show that Lin and Reiter were indeed correct in their intuitions by providing a proof for the conjecture, thus resolving the open question about the first-order definability of progression and justifying the need for a second-order definition.\n\nThen we proceed to identify three cases where it is possible to obtain a first-order progression with the desired properties: i) we extend earlier work by Lin and Reiter and present a case where we restrict our attention to a practical class of queries that may only quantify over situations in a limited way; ii) we revisit the local-effect assumption of Liu and Levesque that requires that the effects of an action are fixed by the arguments of the action and show that in this case a first-order progression is suitable; iii) we investigate a way that the local-effect assumption can be relaxed and show that when the initial knowledge base is a database of possible closures and the effects of the actions are range-restricted then a first-order progression is also suitable under a just-in-time assumption.\n\nFinally, we examine a special case of the action theories with range-restricted effects and present an algorithm for computing a finite progression. We prove the correctness and the complexity of the algorithm, and show its application in a simple example that is inspired by video games.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".