MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290243003

Using a recursive neural network to learn an agent's decision model for plan recognition

2015· article· en· W2290243003 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePlan (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningA priori and a posterioriKey (lock)Artificial neural networkDecision modelState (computer science)Algorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plan recognition, the problem of inferring the goals or plans of an observed agent, is a key element of situation awareness in human-machine and machine-machine interactions for many applications. Some plan recognition algorithms require knowledge about the potential behaviours of the observed agent in the form of a plan library, together with a decision model about how the observed agent uses the plan library to make decisions. It is however difficult to elicit and specify the decision model a priori. In this paper, we present a recursive neural network model that learns such a decision model automatically. We discuss promising experimental results of the approach with comparisons to selected state-of-the-art plan recognition algorithms on three benchmark domains.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.081 · 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