MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W84951255

Learning subjective representations for planning

2005· article· en· W84951255 on OpenAlex
Dana Wilkinson, Michael Bowling, Ali Ghodsi

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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Construct (python library)Action (physics)Domain knowledgeRobotSequence (biology)Knowledge representation and reasoningMachine learningMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning involves using a model of an agent’s actions to find a sequence of decisions which achieve a desired goal. It is usually assumed that the models are given, and such models often require expert knowledge of the domain. This paper explores subjective representations for planning that are learned directly from agent observations and actions (requiring no initial domain knowledge). A non-linear embedding technique called Action Respecting Embedding is used to construct such a representation. It is then shown how to extract the effects of the agent’s actions as operators in this learned representation. Finally, the learned representation and operators are combined with search to find sequences of actions that achieve given goals. The efficacy of this technique is demonstrated in a challenging robot-vision-inspired image domain. 1

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207