MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229810260 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11321

Contributions to Techniques for Learning Non-Reactive Behaviour from Observation

2016· dissertation· en· W4229810260 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

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMetric (unit)Jaccard indexReactive nitrogenEngineeringPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning from observation allows an expert to train a software agent or robot without explicitly programming the behaviour. Behaviour learned can be broken down into categories: reactive and non-reactive. Actions in reactive behaviour are based on the current environment state whereas actions in non-reactive uses both current state, and any past action or states. We will analyze and compare using a common benchmark two recent and partially studied approaches to learning non-reactive behaviour from observation: Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBN) and Temporal Backtracking (TB). The goal is to characterize situations where one approach should be preferred over the other.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207