MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312223971 · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.1066422

An intrinsically motivated learning algorithm based on Bayesian surprise for cognitive radar in autonomous vehicles

2022· article· en· W4312223971 on OpenAlexafffund
Yeganeh Zamiri-Jafarian, Ming Hou, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsSurpriseComputer scienceRadarKalman filterRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This paper proposes a Bayesian surprise learning algorithm that internally motivates the cognitive radar to estimate a target's state (i.e., velocity, distance) from noisy measurements and make decisions to reduce the estimation error gradually. The work exhibits how the sensor learns from experiences, anticipates future responses, and adjusts its waveform parameters to achieve informative measurements based on the Bayesian surprise. Methods For a simple vehicle-following scenario where the radar measurements are generated from linear Gaussian state-space models, the article adopts the Kalman filter to carry out state estimation. According to the information within the filter's estimate, the sensor intrinsically assigns a surprise-based reward value to the immediate past action and updates the value-to-go function. Through a series of hypothetical steps, the cognitive radar considers the impact of future transmissions for a prescribed set of waveforms–available from the sensor profile library–to improve the estimation process. Results and discussion Numerous experiments investigate the performance of the proposed design for various surprise-based reward expressions. The robustness of the proposed method is compared to the state-of-the-art for practical and risky driving situations. Results show that the reward functions inspired by estimation credibility measures outperform their competitors when one-step planning is considered. Simulation results also indicate that multiple-step planning does not necessarily lead to lower error, particularly when the environment changes abruptly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Computer ScienceSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207