MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224220194 · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2022.03.037

Deep learning, reinforcement learning, and world models

2022· review· en· W4224220194 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

VenueNeural Networks · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Human intelligenceDeep learningCognitive scienceReinforcementPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning (DL) and reinforcement learning (RL) methods seem to be a part of indispensable factors to achieve human-level or super-human AI systems. On the other hand, both DL and RL have strong connections with our brain functions and with neuroscientific findings. In this review, we summarize talks and discussions in the "Deep Learning and Reinforcement Learning" session of the symposium, International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Brain Science. In this session, we discussed whether we can achieve comprehensive understanding of human intelligence based on the recent advances of deep learning and reinforcement learning algorithms. Speakers contributed to provide talks about their recent studies that can be key technologies to achieve human-level intelligence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.246 · 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