Coupling agent motivations and spatial behaviors for authoring multiagent narratives
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
Abstract Authoring behavior narratives for heterogeneous multiagent virtual humans engaged in collaborative, localized, and task‐based behaviors can be challenging. Traditional behavior authoring frameworks are either space‐centric , where occupancy parameters are specified; behavior‐centric , where multiagent behaviors are defined; or agent‐centric , where desires and intentions drive agents' behavior. In this paper, we propose to integrate these approaches into a unique framework to author behavior narratives that progressively satisfy time‐varying building‐level occupancy specifications, room‐level behavior distributions, and agent‐level motivations using a prioritized resource allocation system. This approach can generate progressively more complex and plausible narratives that satisfy spatial, behavioral, and social constraints. Possible applications of this system involve computer gaming and decision‐making in engineering and architectural design.
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 | 0.000 | 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