Distributed Control of Situated Assistance in Large Domains with Many Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tackles the problem of building situated prompting and assistance systems for guiding a human with a cognitive disability through a large domain containing multiple tasks. This problem is challenging because the target population has difficulty maintaining goals, recalling necessary steps and recognizing objects and potential actions (affordances), and therefore may not appear to be acting rationally. Prompts or cues from an automated system can be very helpful in this regard, but the domain is inherently partially observable due to sensor noise and uncertain human behaviours, making the task of selecting an appropriate prompt very challenging. Prior work has shown how such automated assistance for a single task can be modeled as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). In this paper, we generalise this to multiple tasks, and show how to build a scalable, distributed and hierarchical controller. We demonstrate the algorithm in a set of simulated domains and show it can perform as well as the full model in many cases, and can give solutions to large problems (over 1015 states and 109 observations) for which the full model fails to find a policy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".