Cognitive Model of Agent Exploration with Vision and Signage Understanding
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Signage systems play an essential role in ensuring safe, stress‐free, and efficient navigation for the occupants of indoor spaces. Crowd simulations with sufficiently realistic virtual humans provide a convenient and cost‐effective approach to evaluating and optimizing signage systems. In this work, we develop an agent model which makes use of image processing on parametric saliency maps to visually identify signage and distractions in the agent's field of view. Information from identified signs is incorporated into a grid‐based representation of wayfinding familiarity, which is used to guide informed exploration of the agent's environment using a modified A* algorithm. In areas with low wayfinding familiarity, the agent follows a random exploration behaviour based on sampling a grid of previously observed locations for heuristic values based on space syntax isovist measures. The resulting agent design is evaluated in a variety of test environments and found to be able to reliably navigate towards a goal location using a combination of signage and random exploration.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it