MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800387456 · doi:10.82308/30107

Computational modeling of learning in complex problem solving tasks

2007· dissertation· en· W2800387456 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The information processing theory of problem solving has emphasized search and heuristics and comparatively neglected learning, a situation that this thesis addresses. Participants learn to solve problems using environmental feedback, verbal instructions, or demonstrations performed by experts. Empirical and simulation work confirms that demonstrations and instructions are more effective for learning than binary feedback (answer correct or not). Results also show that humans successfully generalize what they learn by observation to more complex tasks, suggesting understanding rather than rote memorizing of the solutions observed. Four computational models of complex problem solving are presented. First, a reinforcement learning model is trained on binary environmental rewards only (RL-SDCC-SARSA) to simulate the binary reinforcement condition. It can learn the task with enough training but is less accurate than humans given equivalent learning. We argue that this is evidence that humans may be using distance to goal, look-ahead search, and reasoning. Second, a supervised cascade-correlation neural network (SL-SDCC) model learning from demonstrations successfully captures human accuracy in the imitation learning group. Third, a reinforcement-based model with direct policy training (RL-SDCC-DPT) learning from demonstrations also captures imitation learning group accuracy. Finally, a supervised knowledge-based cascade-correlation (SL-KBCC) model with selection rules as prior knowledge successfully captures performance of the verbal instructions group. This model builds more compact networks than SL-SDCC that also train faster. All four models presented use cascade-correlation networks, which are either trained directly (SL-SDCC and SL-KBCC) or used as function approximators for expected rewards (RL-SDCC-DPT and RL-SDCC-SARSA). In the latter models, a second layer involves learning target expected rewards. SARSA converts environmental rewards into target rewards, and direct policy training (DPT) converts demonstrations into target rewards. Reinforcement-based models are more complex and costly to train than supervised systems, but they cover more cognitive phenomena in a single unified and parsimonious system, including the use of problem variants, exploration, and working memory limitations. Promising ideas are proposed to extend reinforcement-based models: distance-based rewards (DBR), which involve using distance to goal as a self-generated reward; look-ahead search; and intrinsic exploration by adding randomness to the action selection system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.295 · 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