MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040850713 · doi:10.1080/01691864.2020.1786723

A library for constraint consistent learning

2020· article· en· W3040850713 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

VenueAdvanced Robotics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsReuseComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)Task (project management)SoftwareSpace (punctuation)ImplementationCode (set theory)Null (SQL)Learning curveMachine learningArtificial intelligenceState spaceHuman–computer interactionSoftware engineeringProgramming languageData miningEngineeringSet (abstract data type)Operating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces the first, open source software library for Constraint Consistent Learning (CCL). It implements a family of data-driven methods that are capable of (i) learning state-independent and -dependent constraints, (ii) decomposing the behaviour of redundant systems into task- and null-space parts, and (iii) uncovering the underlying null space control policy. It is a tool to analyse and decompose many everyday tasks, such as wiping, reaching and drawing. The library also includes several tutorials that demonstrate its use with both simulated and real world data in a systematic way. This paper documents the methods contained within the library, including the implementations of said methods in tutorials and associated helper methods. The software is made freely available to the community, to enable code reuse and allow users to gain in-depth experience in statistical learning in this area.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · 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