Stochastic Goal Recognition Design Problems with Suboptimal Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal Recognition Design (GRD) problems identify the minimum number of environmental modifications aiming to force an interacting agent to reveal its goal as early as possible. Researchers proposed several extensions to the original model, some of them handling stochastic agent action outcomes. While this generalization is useful, it assumes optimal acting agents, which limits its applicability to more realistic scenarios. This paper presents the Suboptimal Stochastic GRD model, where we consider boundedly rational agents that, due to limited resources, might follow a suboptimal policy. Inspired by theories on human behavior asserting that humans are (close to) optimal when making perceptual decisions, we assume the chosen policy has at most m suboptimal actions. Our contribution includes (I) Extending the stochastic goal recognition design framework by supporting suboptimal agents in cases where an observer has either full or partial observability; (ii) Presenting methods to evaluate the ambiguity of the model under these assumptions; and (iii) Evaluating our approach on a range of benchmark applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".