Acquiring Information from Bayesian Surprise in Cognitive Linear Gaussian Dynamic Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of autonomous systems (AS) requires cognitive entities capable of acquiring information, learning, planning, and reasoning that eventually adapt to environmental uncertainties. Since surprising events encourage learning and information-seeking in biological agents, this research suggests surprise as the intrinsic motivator to design cognitive dynamic systems undergoing autonomous behavior. Amongst several definitions of surprise, this thesis proposes the Bayesian surprise to express information utility and to guide novelty acquisition from uncertain measurements by considering the impact of new data on changing prior beliefs. By adopting Gaussian noise-driven linear dynamic models to represent the environment, the Bayesian surprise drives the system to estimate future environmental states from noisy measurements and execute a decision to minimize the estimation error over time. This research implements a novel planning algorithm, where the system computes the contribution of prospective actions---which are available from a library---to state estimation and selects the one that maximizes the expectation of Bayesian surprise. Theoretical analysis shows that the action corresponding to the highest expectation of Bayesian surprise conveys the maximum information and reduces the state estimation error. Furthermore, a learning and planning algorithm is derived by intrinsically assigning novel rewards which are developed based on the expectation of Bayesian surprise. This thesis proposes reward functions inspired by credibility measures in estimation/control theory to evaluate the consequences of past actions. The performances of the proposed algorithms are compared to the state-of-the-art for numerous experiments. For a cognitive linear Gaussian dynamic application (i.e., cognitive radar), results show that the proposed planning algorithm outperforms its competitors with respect to the mean square relative error when one-step and multiple-step planning are considered. In comparison to alternative methods, the learning and planning algorithm implemented by the proposed surprise-based rewards significantly improves the state estimation performance. Also, results indicate that multiple-step planning does not necessarily lead to lower error, mainly 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".