Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Agential AI for Integrated Continual Learning, Deliberative Behavior, and Comprehensible Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that one system, built on a variation-and-selection learner over discrete states, can deliver continual learning, goal-directed planning, and comprehensible hierarchical behavior simultaneously.

desk verdict A promising but over-claimed systems proposal: the integrated design is fresh, but its central no-forgetting theorem is false as stated, and the experiments are too thin to carry the guarantees. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16922 v1 pith:3PDH3RKR submitted 2025-01-28 cs.AI cs.LG

Zeki Doruk Erden , Boi Faltings This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords continuallearningdeliberativeplanningbehaviorencapsulationstructuredenvironmentmodelingvarselmechanismactionnetworksnormalizedcausaleffectcomprehensiblemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that most limitations of current machine learning—catastrophic forgetting, opaque internal structure, and separation from planning—share one root cause: environments are approximated by fixed-parameter models rather than learned topologically. It proposes Agential AI (AAI), a system whose core, Modelleyen, builds a discrete network of state variables and conditioning units one observation at a time, refining connections only by local variation and selection. The key formal claim is Theorem 1: a refinement triggered by a new observation never changes a unit's response to any past observation, so learning is continual without task boundaries or replay. On top of this model, Planlayan performs goal-directed planning, and a behavior-encapsulation pass compresses the resulting action networks into reusable hierarchical subpolicies with automatically detected subgoals. If the design holds, a single framework would address continual learning, interpretability, and deliberative behavior together, rather than as separate subfields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditioning state variable (CSV), a discrete unit that stores which earlier-active variables (positive and negative sources) must hold for a target event (a state change or another CSV) to be active. CSVs are generated exhaustively when an event lacks an explanation, then pruned by local refinement; the 'varsel' (variation-and-selection) quality of this process is what carries the argument. The central identity is Theorem 1's monotonicity: refinements only delete sources, so a refined CSV's truth value on any past instance is unchanged, except for a one-time negative-source formation explicitly excluded by the theorem. This monotonicity is what turns local pruning into a global continual-learning guarantee.

What would settle it

Run Modelleyen on a simple first-order Markov environment whose target is true when exactly one of two base variables is active, and replay all previously seen instances after every refinement; the claim stands only if the network predicts correctly on all four corners and no old instance's predicted state changes after a later refinement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a learning rule based on component-level variation and selection can construct a model of a Markovian discrete environment that is complete with respect to observed transitions, minimal in its retained connections, and stable under continued learning. The learning unit is a conditioning state variable (CSV), created as an overinclusive hypothesis connecting all currently active variables to an unexplained event, then refined by removing connections that later observations show to be unnecessary. Because refinement only removes sources, a CSV's response to any past instance is preserved (Theorem 1), which is what makes continual learning non-destructive. This model then supports a planner that works backward from a goal, and the planner's exhaustive action networks can be encapsulated into a minimal hierarchy of subpolicies whose subgoals are discovered, not specified.

Load-bearing premise

The environment's dynamics must be a first-order Markov process over a fixed set of externally supplied discrete state variables, with no dependence on longer histories and no relevant hidden variables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the design holds, agents can learn online in nonstationary environments without replay buffers or task boundaries.
  • A learned model can be consulted by a planner for new goals immediately, with no additional training per goal.
  • Behavior can be decomposed into reusable, human-readable subpolicies whose subgoals emerge from the model rather than being predefined.
  • Uncertainty is represented locally via unconditionality flags, allowing alternative outcomes and correlated multi-event branches to coexist.
  • Because the model is structural, goals can be reached by backward chaining without sampling next states, avoiding the imprecision of forward-sampling model-based reinforcement learning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implicit extension is that the same variation-and-selection operation, applied to subgraphs of an event chain rather than to individual variables, could let the machinery handle temporal dependencies of order greater than one, effectively relaxing the Markov assumption instead of requiring a different algorithm.
  • A testable consequence of the monotonicity theorem is that after any sequence of observations, the model should still answer correctly for every previously seen condition-target pair; a unit-test suite over random Markov environments could verify this mechanically and expose any unstated edge case.
  • The authors leave behavior encapsulation disconnected from the running agent; feeding encapsulated subpolicies back into the planner as macro-actions would directly measure whether reuse actually shortens learning of new goals.
  • The paper's significance-filtering mechanism (normalized causal effect) is first-order only, so an obvious next experiment is to test in environments where a relationship is insignificant without an upstream conditioner but significant with it; the paper acknowledges this as a limitation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Agential AI (AAI), a three-component system: Modelleyen, a discrete, online structural learner that forms and refines "conditioning state variables" (CSVs); Planlayan, a backward-chaining planner over the learned model; and a behavior-encapsulation mechanism that abstracts action networks into hierarchical subpolicies. The abstract claims that Modelleyen models temporal dynamics with guarantees of completeness, minimality, and continual learning, and the main formal anchor is Theorem 1, which asserts that refinements to a CSV do not change its response to past instances. The empirical section evaluates goal-directed planning and continual learning on a small hand-designed finite-state environment, and a randomized variant that uses an NCE-based significance filter.

Significance. If the central theorem were correct, AAI would be a genuinely different architecture: a single mechanism that learns a discrete, human-comprehensible model incrementally without task boundaries, plans backward from goals, and abstracts behavior into reusable hierarchical units. The paper is clearly written, includes pseudocode for all three components, and is unusually candid about current limitations in Section 8.1 and Appendix A.4. However, Theorem 1 fails as stated, which removes the formal basis for the paper's headline continual-learning guarantee, and the completeness and minimality claims are asserted rather than proven. The experimental demonstration on a toy environment is suggestive but does not compensate for the central technical flaw. The contribution at this stage is an interesting but unsubstantiated proposal rather than a validated system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 / Appendix A.3] Theorem 1 is false as stated. Consider a CSV C with positive sources {A,B} and target D. Encounter y0 has A=1, B=-1, D=-1: sources are unsatisfied because B is inactive, so under the refinement rules in A.2.1 no refinement occurs (the state is 0, and the state-0 refinement applies only when an active negative source is present). Encounter y1 has A=1, B=-1, D=1: since D is active, C's state is deduced as 1 and B is removed from the positive sources. Replaying y0 against the modified C, A is active and the singleton {A} is satisfied while D is inactive, so C's state becomes -1, whereas before y1 it was 0. The theorem's conditions (identical targets, no negative-sources formation) are met, so the claimed invariance is violated. The proof's assertion that unsatisfied sources at y0 must be uniformly unsatisfied because non-matching sources 'will have been refined' is exactly the invalid step: refinement only removes inactive positives when the CSV is processed with an active target.
  2. [Section 3 / Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 contradicts Definition 3 and the accompanying prose. In Algorithm 2, the branch 'else if AnyTargetInactive()' with 'not(AllSourcesActive())' sets State=1 (lines 7-9), whereas Definition 3 and the text in A.2.1 define the state as 0 when sources are not satisfied. This inconsistency matters for Theorem 1: under the pseudocode's interpretation, the counterexample above changes C's response to y0 from 1 to -1, still violating the theorem. The proof, the algorithm, and the main-text prose must be aligned before the continual-learning claim can be evaluated.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] The claims of guarantees of completeness, minimality, and continual learning are not supported by any formal statement or proof except Theorem 1, and Theorem 1 is false. The informal assertions that the model is 'as structurally and explanatorily minimal as possible' and 'as general as necessary' do not establish completeness or minimality; no theorem defines these notions or shows that the refinement process converges to a model satisfying them. These are load-bearing parts of the abstract's central claim.
  4. [Sections 6-7, Tables 2-3] The empirical support for the system's effectiveness is thin: one hand-designed two-cell FSM, five trials per condition, large standard deviations (e.g., Table 3, Random Env. RS-L: 190.86 +/- 148.0), no comparison to any baseline other than random actions, and several hand-tuned parameters (NCE cutoff 0.25, exploration 10%, 4000 initial random steps). The paper explains the absence of baselines by claimed novelty, but that does not remove the need for at least a standard tabular model-based RL comparison or statistical significance tests. As presented, the experiments are proof-of-principle illustrations, not evidence for the strong claims made in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.3] In the first paragraph of the proof, the two displayed conditions for satisfied sources both quantify over X^0_P; the second should quantify over X^0_N.
  2. [Theorem 1 statement and Figure 2 caption] There are typos: 'reponse' should be 'response', and 'respctively' in the Figure 2 caption should be 'respectively'.
  3. [Section 8.1] The statement in Section 8 that 'the only inherent limitation of AAI is its reliance on discrete observation and state spaces' is undercut by Section 8.1, which lists Markovianity, use of externally provided BSVs, first-order NCE, exhaustive planning, and lack of precise timing as additional limitations; the text should be reconciled.
  4. [Appendix A.6] The text contains an unresolved placeholder 'Figure??' when referring to a sample pathway; this should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central learning guarantee is proven in-paper, the planning measurements are post-learning evaluations, and the only self-citation is a provenance note.

full rationale

The paper's central continual-learning claim (Theorem 1) is supported by a proof contained in Appendix A.3 rather than imported from prior work; the proof may be challenged on correctness grounds, but that is not circularity. The planning results in Table 2 and continual learning results in Table 3 are empirical evaluations of an agent after Modelleyen has learned a model; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no subset of the reported performance is used to define the model's objective. The NCE threshold of 0.25 and the 10% exploration rate are hand-set experimental parameters, not fitted inputs to the claimed guarantees. The only self-citation is footnote 1, which merely notes that an earlier version of Modelleyen appeared in [7]; this citation does not carry any load-bearing argument, since the learning rules, Theorem 1, and the experimental comparisons are all presented in this manuscript. The terms 'varsel mechanism' and 'varsel network' are introduced as names for the proposed class of mechanisms, not as a renaming of an existing result claimed as a unification. Therefore, with respect to circularity, the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small number of hand-set parameters and strong domain assumptions. The NCE threshold and exploration rate are tuned without sensitivity analysis. The Markovian discrete-state assumption is acknowledged by the authors as the main limitation. The CSVs are an invented representation with no external validation.

free parameters (3)
  • NCE cutoff threshold (epsilon_T) = 0.25
    Used to block upstream conditioner formation in the random environment variant (Appendix A.5); hand-set by the authors, affects model complexity and planning performance.
  • Exploration rate = 10%
    Chance of random action during planning experiments (Section 6); chosen without sensitivity analysis, affects measured episode durations.
  • Initial learning period length = 4000 steps
    Random actions before goal introduction (Section 6); arbitrary, affects how complete the learned model is before planning starts.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The environment is a first-order Markov process over a fixed set of discrete state variables (BSVs).
    Section 3 and Section 8.1 state the model only accounts for immediate event succession and assumes a Markovian environment; this restricts the claimed guarantees to that setting.
  • domain assumption All relevant dynamics can be expressed as logical conditions over previous-step BSV/DSV states (positive and negative sources).
    CSV formation assumes effects are attributable to conjunctions of active/inactive SVs from the previous step; no numerical or sequential dependencies are modeled (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The pre-specified BSV set is sufficient to predict next-step dynamics; there are no unobserved state variables or confounders.
    The model only conditions on BSVs/DSVs it is given; if important variables are missing, learned relations are not causal and completeness fails (Section 3, Definition 2).
  • standard math The proof of Theorem 1 relies on monotonic refinement of source sets (only removals, except one-time negative-source formation).
    Appendix A.3 uses set inclusion X1_P subset X0_P and X1_N subset X0_N to show past responses are preserved; this is a standard property of the algorithm, not an extra empirical premise.
  • domain assumption Statistical significance is measured via normalized causal effect using estimated probabilities; the estimate is treated as reliable after transients.
    Appendix A.4 computes NCE from observed frequencies; the authors acknowledge transient bias and only first-order effects, so filtering decisions may be wrong in some regimes.
invented entities (1)
  • Conditioning SV (CSV) with unconditionality flag and mutable positive/negative source sets
    purpose: Represents a learned logical relationship between source conditions and target activations; the core representational unit of Modelleyen
    CSVs are introduced by the paper as a new computational construct; the only evidence for their utility is the paper's own toy experiments, and no external falsifiable prediction or independent implementation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agential AI for Integrated Continual Learning, Deliberative Behavior, and Comprehensible Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PDH3RKR

@misc{pith2026250116922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agential AI for Integrated Continual Learning, Deliberative Behavior, and Comprehensible Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PDH3RKR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16922}
}
read the original abstract

Contemporary machine learning paradigm excels in statistical data analysis, solving problems that classical AI couldn't. However, it faces key limitations, such as a lack of integration with planning, incomprehensible internal structure, and inability to learn continually. We present the initial design for an AI system, Agential AI (AAI), in principle operating independently or on top of statistical methods, designed to overcome these issues. AAI's core is a learning method that models temporal dynamics with guarantees of completeness, minimality, and continual learning, using component-level variation and selection to learn the structure of the environment. It integrates this with a behavior algorithm that plans on a learned model and encapsulates high-level behavior patterns. Preliminary experiments on a simple environment show AAI's effectiveness and potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of SV types and relationships. The figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample formation of a CSV in a continual man [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of upstream conditioning, continuing from Figure 2. Assume that the unconditionality flag of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration step-by-step upstream generation of action network, operating on different SV types. BX, CX and GX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrative example for the aim of behavior encap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average (5 trials) episode durations throughout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of action networks on test environment. Bold edges are encapsulated. Each node represents a different state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A sample environment model learned by Modelleyen. In the visualized model, brown nodes are BSVs, blues are DSVs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same model as Figure 9, but with reliable pathways only, showing "islands of certainty" as potential candidates for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evolutionary Developmental Biology Can Serve as the Conceptual Foundation for a New Design Paradigm in Artificial Intelligence

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper proposes regulatory connections, weak linkage, and component-level variation-selection, drawn from evo-devo, as the unifying conceptual foundation for a new AI design paradigm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, Davide Abati, and Simone Calderara. 2020. Dark experience for general continual learning: a strong, simple baseline. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 15920– 15930

    2020

  2. [2]

    Sinan Çalışır and Meltem Kurt Pehlivanoğlu. 2019. Model-free reinforcement learning algorithms: A survey. In 2019 27th signal processing and communications applications conference (SIU). IEEE, 1–4

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Maxime Chevalier-Boisvert, Bolun Dai, Mark Towers, Rodrigo de Lazcano, Lu- cas Willems, Salem Lahlou, Suman Pal, Pablo Samuel Castro, and Jordan Terry

  4. [4]

    Jeff Clune. 2019. AI-GAs: AI-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm for producing general artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10985 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Andrea Cossu, Francesco Spinnato, Riccardo Guidotti, and Davide Bacciu. 2024. Drifting explanations in continual learning. Neurocomputing (2024), 127960

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gerald M Edelman. 1993. Neural Darwinism: selection and reentrant signaling in higher brain function. Neuron 10, 2 (1993), 115–125

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2024. Modelleyen: Continual Learning and Planning via Structured Modelling of Environment Dynamics. In Brain Informatics: 17th International Conference, BI 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, December 13–15, 2024, Proceedings, Sirawaj Itthipuripat, Giorgio Ascoli, Anan Li, Narun Pat, and Hongzhi Kuai (Eds.). Springer Singapore

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner. 2007. The theory of facilitated variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, suppl_1 (2007), 8582–8589

    work page 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Malik Ghallab, Dana Nau, and Paolo Traverso. 2016. Automated planning and acting. Cambridge University Press

    2016

  2. [10]

    Raia Hadsell, Dushyant Rao, Andrei A Rusu, and Razvan Pascanu. 2020. Em- bracing change: Continual learning in deep neural networks. Trends in cognitive sciences 24, 12 (2020), 1028–1040

    2020

  3. [11]

    John Hammersley. 2013. Monte carlo methods . Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  4. [12]

    Maxwell J Jacobson, Case Q Wright, Nan Jiang, Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera, and Yexiang Xue. 2022. Task Detection in Continual Learning via Familiarity Autoen- coders. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 1–8

    2022

  5. [13]

    Abdullah Ayub Khan, Asif Ali Laghari, and Shafique Ahmed Awan. 2021. Machine learning in computer vision: a review. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems 8, 32 (2021), e4–e4

    2021

  6. [14]

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Neville Kenneth Kitson, Anthony C Constantinou, Zhigao Guo, Yang Liu, and Kiattikun Chobtham. 2023. A survey of Bayesian Network structure learning. Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 8 (2023), 8721–8814

    2023

  8. [16]

    Yann LeCun. 2022. A path towards autonomous machine intelligence version 0.9. 2, 2022-06-27. Open Review 62, 1 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yuxi Li. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning: An overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kirschner Marc. 2005. The plausibility of life . Yale University Press

    2005

  11. [19]

    Gary Marcus. 2018. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00631 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thomas M Moerland, Joost Broekens, and Catholijn M Jonker. 2020. A framework for reinforcement learning and planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.15009 127 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Thomas M Moerland, Joost Broekens, Aske Plaat, Catholijn M Jonker, et al. 2023. Model-based reinforcement learning: A survey. Foundations and Trends ® in Machine Learning 16, 1 (2023), 1–118

    2023

  14. [22]

    Argaman Mordoch, Brendan Juba, and Roni Stern. 2023. Learning safe numeric action models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 12079–12086

    2023

  15. [23]

    Shubham Pateria, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-hwee Tan, and Chai Quek. 2021. Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 5 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  16. [24]

    Marcel JM Pelgrom and Marcel JM Pelgrom. 2013. Analog-to-digital conversion. Springer

    2013

  17. [25]

    Hiranmoy Roy, Debotosh Bhattacharjee, and Ondrej Krejcar. 2022. Interpretable local frequency binary pattern (LFrBP) based joint continual learning network for heterogeneous face recognition. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 17 (2022), 2125–2136

    2022

  18. [26]

    Andrei A Rusu, Neil C Rabinowitz, Guillaume Desjardins, Hubert Soyer, James Kirkpatrick, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. 2016. Pro- gressive neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04671 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dawid Rymarczyk, Joost van de Weijer, Bartosz Zieliński, and Bartlomiej Twar- dowski. 2023. Icicle: Interpretable class incremental continual learning. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 1887–1898

    2023

  20. [28]

    Roni Stern and Brendan Juba. 2017. Efficient, safe, and probably approximately complete learning of action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08961 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pulkit Verma, Shashank Rao Marpally, and Siddharth Srivastava. 2021. Asking the right questions: Learning interpretable action models through query answering. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 35. 12024– 12033

    2021

  22. [30]

    Mary Jane West-Eberhard. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution . Oxford University Press

    2003

  23. [31]

    Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu

  24. [32]

    Anthony M Zador. 2019. A critique of pure learning and what artificial neural networks can learn from animal brains. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 3770

    2019

  25. [33]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    unconditional

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proc. IEEE 109, 1 (2020), 43–76. . A APPENDIX A.1 Details of Modelleyen system components We define a state variable (SV) as a...

    2020

  27. [2019]

    In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 8

    Explainable AI: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 8 . Springer, 563–574

    2019

  28. [2023]

    CoRR abs/2306.13831 (2023)

    Minigrid & Miniworld: Modular & Customizable Reinforcement Learning Environments for Goal-Oriented Tasks. CoRR abs/2306.13831 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.