MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805961787

A case-based reasoning approach to learning state-based behavior

2018· article· en· W2805961787 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Florida AI Research Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInductive biasMachine learningState (computer science)Similarity (geometry)Multi-task learningCase-based reasoningDomain (mathematical analysis)AlgorithmMathematicsTask (project management)Engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning from Observation involves creating agents that observe experts performing tasks and imitate them. Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) is a tool that can be used for this purpose. Regular CBR can only learn memoryless behavior: behavior that doesn't rely on the past. Temporal Backtracking (TB) is an approach to learning state-based behavior that uses re-cency as its inductive bias, which may or may not be relevant to the agent behavior. We show how TB can be viewed as a particular case of a more generalized case-based approach to learning state-based behavior that can accommodate other inductive biases. We then propose five alternative similarity metrics to learn three different state-based behaviors in a 2D vacuum cleaner domain, and compare their performance to the TB algorithm's performance. We show that none of the proposed metrics (nor TB) is a one-size-fits all algorithm for learning state-based behavior.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.277 · 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