MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997443382 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6551

Active Goal Recognition

2020· article· en· W2997443382 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMicrosoft Research
KeywordsExpeditingObserver (physics)Computer scienceAgency (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceGoal orientationLandmarkMachine learningHuman–computer interactionPsychologyEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of goal recognition is to infer a goal that accounts for the observed behavior of an actor. In this work, we introduce and formalize the notion of active goal recognition in which we endow the observer with agency to sense, reason, and act in the world with a view to enhancing and possibly expediting goal recognition, and/or to intervening in goal achievement. To this end, we present an algorithm for active goal recognition and a landmark-based approach to the elimination of hypothesized goals which leverages automated planning. Experiments demonstrate the merits of providing agency to the observer, and the effectiveness of our approach in potentially enhancing the observational power of the observer, as well as expediting and in some cases making possible the recognition of the actor's goal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.170 · 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