MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424764846 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2016.7490540

A learning invader for the guarding a territory game

2016· article· en· W2424764846 on OpenAlexaff
Hashem Raslan, Howard M. Schwartz, Sidney Givigi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuard (computer science)Nash equilibriumComputer scienceRobotGame theoryArtificial intelligenceMathematical economicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the use of a learning algorithm in the "guarding a territory" game. The game occurs in continuous time, where a single learning invader tries to get as close as possible to a territory before being captured by a guard. Previous research has approached the problem by letting only the guard learn. We will examine the other possibility of the game, in which only the invader is going to learn. Furthermore, in our case the guard is superior to the invader. We will also consider using models with non-holonomic constraints. A control system is designed and optimized for the invader to play the game and reach Nash-Equilibrium. The paper finally shows how the learning system is able to adapt itself. The system's performance is evaluated through different simulations and compared to the Nash-Equilibrium. Experiments with real robots were conducted and verified our simulations in a real-life environment. Our results show that our learning invader behaved rationally in different circumstances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207