MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396664359

Supplemental Case Acquisition Using Mixed-Initiative Control

2011· article· en· W2396664359 on OpenAlex
Michael W. Floyd, Babak Esfandiari

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

VenueThe Florida AI Research Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Computer scienceControl (management)Expert systemKnowledge acquisitionSoftwareMulti-agent systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learningHuman–computer interactionEngineeringSystems engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning by observation allows a software agent to learn by watching an expert perform a task. This transfers the burden of training from the expert, who would traditionally need to program the agent, to the agent itself. Most existing approaches to learning by observation perform their observation in a purely passive manner. We propose a case-based reasoning agent that is able to observe passively but can also use mixed-initiative control to request assistance from the expert for difficult input problems. Our agent uses mixed-initiative case acquisition in the game of Tetris. We show that the agent is able to obtain cases it would not have been able to with passive observation alone, is able to improve its performance and places less burden on the expert.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.169 · 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