Intelligent affect: rational decision making for socially aligned agents
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affect Control Theory (ACT) is a mathematical model that makes accurate predictions about human behaviour across a wide range of settings. The predictions, which are derived from statistics about human actions and identities in real and laboratory environments, are shared prescriptive and behaviours that are believed to lead to solutions to everyday cooperative problems. A generalisation of ACT, called BayesAct, allows the principles of ACT to be used for human-interactive agents by combining a probabilistic version of the ACT dynamical model of affect with a utility function encoding external goals. Planning in BayesAct, which we address in this paper, then allows one to go beyond the prescription, and leads to the emergence of more complex interactions between cognitive and affective reasoning, such as deception leading to manipulation and altercasting. We use a continuous variant of a successful Monte-Carlo tree search planner (POMCP) that dynamically discretises the action and observation spaces while planning. We give demonstrations on two classic two-person social dilemmas.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it