MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377007308 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2023.3272577

Cognitive Dynamic Systems: A Review of Theory, Applications, and Recent Advances

2023· review· en· W4377007308 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsCognitionComputer scienceCognitive scienceField (mathematics)Action (physics)PerceptionDomain (mathematical analysis)Data sciencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of cognitive dynamic systems (CDSs) is an emerging area of research, whereby engineering learns from neuroscience. Under this framework, engineering systems are configured in a manner that mimics the human brain and improves the utility and performance of traditional systems. In essence, a CDS builds on Fuster’s paradigm of cognition and is fulfilled with the presence of five cognitive processes: the perception-action cycle, memory, attention, intelligence, and language. When augmented with these processes, a system can be classified as a CDS and is afforded the capabilities of processing information and learning from experience through continued interactions with the environment. Tremendous benefit from adopting the CDS framework has been observed in the literature, especially in the fields of cognitive radio and cognitive radar. More recently, the framework has been extended to other areas, such as control theory, risk control, and the Internet of Things; where the potential for drastic performance improvements has been evident in the literature. This comprehensive article presents a thorough background and exposition of the CDS framework and each field where it has been applied. In addition, we provide a comprehensive review of the recent advancements and related works in each domain by summarizing the key facts relating to the methodologies, findings, and limitations of the surveyed papers. Our novel contributions involve being the first source of centralized information on this topic and forming the foundation for future research efforts by presenting suggestions regarding worthwhile avenues for further investigation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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