MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasoning about Dynamic Depth Profiles

2008· book-chapter· en· W34131768 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail Soutchanski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reasoning about perception of depth and about spatial relations between moving physical objects is a challenging problem. We investigate the representation of depth and motion by means of depth profiles whereby each object in the world is represented as a single peak. We propose a logical theory, formulated in the situation calculus (SC), that is used for reasoning about object motion (including motion of the observer). The theory proposed here is comprehensive enough to accommodate reasoning about both sensor data and actions in the world. We show that reasoning about depth profiles is sound and complete with respect to actual motion in the world. This shows that in the conceptual neighbourhood diagram (CND) of all possible depth perceptions, the transitions between perceptions are logical consequences of the proposed theory of depth and motion.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207