Less can be More: Effects of a Forgetting Function on an AI-based Policy Capturing Tool Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems need to adapt to changing circumstances to maintain relevance in dynamic environments. Inspired by the adaptive advantages of human forgetting, this study investigates the integration of a forgetting function into an AI system. We implemented this mechanism as a training window within the Cognitive Shadow (CS) system, an AI designed to learn and emulate human decision models. This training window hyperparameter-applicable to supervised machine learning algorithms-aims to address the issue of concept drift by prioritizing recent information. The effectiveness of this addition was tested with a simple strategy game similar in dynamics to rock-paper-scissors. Participants played individually against an AI opponent for three 60-round sessions. CS was trained during Session 1 to learn the decision patterns of the player and actively predicted and countered human decisions in Sessions 2 and 3. Analyses showed that including the training window significantly improved prediction accuracy in both Sessions 2 and 3 by emphasizing recent, relevant data. These findings highlight the potential of incorporating human-inspired forgetting mechanisms to enhance AI performance in interactive and dynamic environments, with implications for future decision support systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".