Modelling Autonomous Agents’ Decisions in Learning to Cross a Cellular Automaton-Based Highway via Artificial Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lot of effort has been devoted to mathematical modelling and simulation of complex systems for a better understanding of their dynamics and control. Modelling and analysis of computer simulations outcomes are also important aspects of studying the behaviour of complex systems. It often involves the use of both traditional and modern statistical approaches, including multiple linear regression, generalized linear model and non-linear regression models such as artificial neural networks. In this work, we first conduct a simulation study of the agents’ decisions learning to cross a cellular automaton based highway and then, we model the simulation data using artificial neural networks. Our research shows that artificial neural networks are capable of capturing the functional relationships between input and output variables of our simulation experiments, and they outperform the classical modelling approaches. The variable importance measure techniques can consistently identify the most dominant factors that affect the response variables, which help us to better understand how the decision-making by the autonomous agents is affected by the input factors. The significance of this work is in extending the investigations of complex systems from mathematical modelling and computer simulations to the analysis and modelling of the data obtained from the simulations using advanced statistical models.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".