Deep reasoning and thinking beyond deep learning by cognitive robots and brain-inspired systems
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
Summary form only given. Recent basic studies reveal that AI problems are deeply rooted in both the understanding of the natural intelligence and the adoption of suitable mathematical means for rigorously modeling the brain in machine understandable forms. Learning is a cognitive process of knowledge and behavior acquisition. Learning can be classified into five categories known as object identification, cluster classification, functional regression, behavior generation, and knowledge acquisition. A fundamental challenge to knowledge learning different from the deep and recurring neural network technologies has led to the emergence of the field of cognitive machine learning on the basis of recent breakthroughs in denotational mathematics and mathematical engineering. This keynote lecture presents latest advances in formal brain studies and cognitive systems for deep reasoning and deep learning. It is recognized that key technologies enabling cognitive robots mimicking the brain rely not only on deep learning, but also on deep reasoning and thinking towards machinable thoughts and cognitive knowledge bases built by a cognitive systems. A fundamental theory and novel technology for implementing deep thinking robots are demonstrated based on concept algebra, semantics algebra, and inference algebra.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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