Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is inspired by how cognitive control manifests itself in the human brain and does so in a remarkable way. It addresses the many facets involved in the control of directed information flow in a dynamic system, culminating in the notion of information gap, defined as the difference between relevant information (useful part of what is extracted from the incoming measurements) and sufficient information representing the information needed for achieving minimal risk. The notion of information gap leads naturally to how cognitive control can itself be defined. Then, another important idea is described, namely the two-state model, in which one is the system's state and the other is the entropic state that provides an essential metric for quantifying the information gap. The entropic state is computed in the perceptual part (i.e., perceptor) of the dynamic system and sent to the controller directly as feedback information. This feedback information provides the cognitive controller the information needed about the environment and the system to bring reinforcement leaning into play; reinforcement learning (RL), incorporating planning as an integral part, is at the very heart of cognitive control. The stage is now set for a computational experiment, involving cognitive radar wherein the cognitive controller is enabled to control the receiver via the environment. The experiment demonstrates how RL provides the mechanism for improved utilization of computational resources, and yet is able to deliver good performance through the use of planning. The paper finishes with concluding remarks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".