Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

TaskSense: Focusing on What Matters in World Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read TaskSense enforces task relevance before latent encoding with stochastic spatial attention, matching DreamerV3 on standard benchmarks while improving robustness to visual distractions.

desk verdict A well-specified pre-encoding attention mechanism for world models with promising distraction robustness, but the empirical evidence is conditional and the inverse-dynamics grounding may be a side-channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06544 v1 pith:XLJ5JW3R submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI cs.CVcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords worldmodelsmodel-basedreinforcementlearningvisualcontrolspatialattentioninversedynamicsdistractionsstochasticlatent
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

This paper proposes TaskSense, a world model for visual control that filters the raw observation through a learned stochastic spatial attention map before encoding, so that only task-relevant regions enter the latent dynamics model. The central claim is that enforcing task relevance at the observation interface, instead of reconstructing the full image, preserves the benefits of reconstruction-based world models while substantially improving robustness to visual distractions. On the DeepMind Control Suite TaskSense matches DreamerV3, and on the Distracting Control Suite it outperforms DreamerV3 on all six evaluated tasks. Because the attention is trained by an auxiliary inverse-dynamics objective that predicts the agent's own previous action, the method assumes that action-predictive visual features coincide with task-relevant features, an assumption the paper explicitly acknowledges as a limitation.

What carries the argument

Stochastic spatial attention at the observation interface. The attention field is a coarse $8 \times 8$ lattice (each site covers an $s \times s$ image patch) with independent Binary Concrete variables giving differentiable masks via the Concrete reparameterization trick; mean-field parameters rather than normalized softmax allow multiple regions to be attended or ignored simultaneously. Conditioning on the previous latent state (with stop-gradient) lets focus evolve with the model's belief about the task rather than with instantaneous appearance alone. This mask does three jobs at once: it gates which pixels the encoder sees, it is concatenated as an extra channel to remove the intensity/attention ambiguity, and it conditions the decoder so reconstruction only models attended content. The inverse-dynamics term on the difference of consecutive encoder features is what actually grounds the mask in control-relevant content; without it, sparsity alone yields diffuse or degenerate attention.

What would settle it

Construct a control task from DMC where a background distractor is perfectly correlated with the action taken but has no effect on reward (e.g., background hue encodes the previous action). Train TaskSense and inspect the learned attention maps: if the mask concentrates on the background rather than on the agent, the inverse-dynamics grounding premise fails, settling that the method's robustness does not extend to settings where action-predictive and task-relevant visual information diverge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TaskSense modifies DreamerV3's observation interface: a lightweight MLP takes the previous latent belief state (with stop-gradient) and outputs an $8 \times 8$ lattice of sigmoid attention logits; a mean-field Binary Concrete (Relaxed Bernoulli) distribution is sampled to produce a stochastic mask, which is upsampled, multiplied elementwise with the observation, and concatenated as an extra input channel before the standard encoder. The world model reconstructs only this attention-modulated observation, conditioned on the sampled mask, so that missing regions are attributed to attention rather than to the latent state. An auxiliary inverse-dynamics head predicts the previous action from the temporal difference of encoded attended features, which, jointly with an attention-sparsity regularizer, steers the mask toward control-relevant content and prevents collapse to all-zero attention. The paper reports that, under this scheme, TaskSense matches DreamerV3 on standard DMC tasks while consistently outperforming it on the Distracting Control Suite, with ablations showing that stochastic attention, inverse-dynamics supervision, and attention-conditioned reconstruction each contribute to the gain.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the visual features which predict the agent's own previous action are exactly the features needed to solve the task; if action-predictive cues (such as a static background correlated with the policy) are not the information required for long-horizon reward, the inverse-dynamics term will ground attention in the wrong regions and the claimed robustness will not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstruction-based world models do not need to preserve every pixel: filtering observations before encoding remains sufficient for latent planning on standard control tasks.
  • Visual distractors that are filtered before encoding cannot consume representational capacity inside the latent dynamics model, which is the mechanism behind the reported Distracting Control Suite gains.
  • Stochastic attention, not just deterministic masking, is needed for robustness, because partial observations during training produce representations that survive varying visual conditions.
  • Attention-conditioned reconstruction prevents a conflict between the reconstruction objective and the filtering objective, so the decoder attributes missing pixels to the stochastic mask rather than forcing the latent state to encode them.
  • The inverse-dynamics objective is the component that localizes attention on control-relevant regions; removing it produces diffuse attention and a substantial performance drop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate testable extension is to replace the one-step inverse-dynamics objective with a multi-step or reward-aligned objective, since the paper's own limitation note implies that long-horizon task relevance may diverge from one-step action predictability.
  • The same attention-interface idea could be applied to other reconstruction-based world models, such as transformer-based or contrastive variants, because TaskSense only changes the observation interface and can be ported without altering the latent dynamics.
  • The learned attention maps themselves could serve as interpretability artifacts for policy debugging, since they reveal which pixels the world model believes are worth encoding.
  • One could test the benchmark claim further by measuring reward, rather than action prediction, as the grounding signal: if attention then shifts to different regions, that would be direct evidence of the premise's limits.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TaskSense, an extension of DreamerV3 in which a stochastic spatial attention map, conditioned on the previous latent state, is used to modulate the observation before the encoder. The modulated observation is formed by element-wise multiplication with the upsampled attention mask and concatenation of the mask as an additional input channel. The world model reconstructs only the attention-modulated observation, conditioned on the sampled mask, and an auxiliary inverse-dynamics loss plus a sparsity regularizer are added to the world-model objective. The paper evaluates TaskSense on six DeepMind Control Suite (DMC) and Distracting Control Suite (DCS) tasks with five seeds, reports that TaskSense matches DreamerV3 on DMC while outperforming it on DCS, and provides ablations and attention visualizations.

Significance. If the empirical claims are supported, the idea of enforcing task relevance at the observation interface, rather than after encoding, is a useful direction for model-based reinforcement learning. The paper has several strengths: a clear description of the architecture, ablations of three design choices (inverse dynamics, stochastic attention, attention-conditioned reconstruction), five-seed runs on six tasks, and qualitative attention maps. The main weaknesses are that the headline performance comparison is reported without error bars or significance tests, and that the inverse-dynamics grounding has an identifiability problem: the attention mask itself is a side channel that can carry action information, so the claim that attention selects task-relevant visual content is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method: Auxiliary Inverse Dynamics (Eqs. 5-6)] The inverse-dynamics loss can be minimized without the attention mask selecting any visual content. The input to g_psi is f_t - SG(f_{t-1}), where f_t = E(o_att_t) and o_att_t = Concat(o_t * m_t^up, m_t^up). The mask channel is therefore directly available to the encoder features. Since m_t is sampled from a distribution whose parameters are produced by f_phi(SG(s_{t-1})) (Eq. 1), and the previous action of the DreamerV3 policy is itself a function of s_{t-1}, g_psi can recover the previous action by reading the mask channel alone; the sparsity regularizer (Eq. 4) even encourages the mask to shrink toward a compact action code. Furthermore, the decoder is conditioned on the same sampled mask in Eq. (7), so it can rely on the mask as a side channel rather than on a rich scene representation. If this occurs, the central claim that TaskSense filters observations with task-groundable spatial attention is unsupported, and the qualitative attention maps would be an epiphenomenon. The authors should rule out this possibility empirically, for example by removing the mask channel from the inverse-dynamics input, by testing whether the inverse-dynamics head can predict actions from the mask alone, or by showing that attention localization is preserved when the observation content is shuffled.
  2. [Experiments: Table 2] The central claim of consistent superiority on DCS is not statistically supported. Five seeds are used, but Table 2 reports only mean returns with no standard deviations, error bars, or significance tests. On DCS Walker Stand the difference is 972.2 versus 965.6, a 0.7% gap that may well be noise; on DCS Cheetah Run the gap is 401.6 versus 267.3, but the reader cannot tell how stable that difference is across seeds. The DMC column also shows large apparent deficits for Cheetah Run (754.9 versus 885.0) and Walker Run (474.0 versus 723.9), which makes the statement that TaskSense 'matches DreamerV3' questionable unless the variance is unusually large. The paper should report per-seed results, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired tests for the five-seed comparisons.
  3. [Experimental Setup: DCS modification] The DCS evaluation uses a modified protocol in which a background frame is sampled independently at every environment step, which is disclosed in the text but differs from the original Distracting Control Suite protocol that plays DAVIS videos sequentially. The abstract and conclusion state 'the Distracting Control Suite' without this caveat. Because the comparison with DreamerV3 is only on this harder, modified setting, the headline conclusion should be qualified, or results on the standard DCS protocol should be reported as well.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Method: Eq. (5) and Fig. 1] The time indexing of the inverse-dynamics objective is inconsistent: the text and Figure 1 say the objective predicts the previous action a_{t-1}, while Eq. (5) defines the prediction as \hat a_t and Eq. (6) targets a_t. Clarify whether a_t is the action taken before or after observing o_t.
  2. [Experiments: Table 1] The temperature \tau = 1.0 and the coefficients \lambda_sparse = 0.1, \lambda_inv = 1.0 are fixed without sensitivity analysis; since the stochastic attention and inverse-dynamics losses are central to the method, a sentence justifying these values or reporting a small sensitivity study would strengthen the paper.
  3. [Experiments: Figure 2] The caption states that reconstructions use the top 5% and top 10% attended regions, but the paper does not specify how the threshold is applied to the continuous attention mask; state the exact binarization procedure.
  4. [Related Work] The empirical comparison is only against DreamerV3; since the paper positions TaskSense against TIA, Masked World Models, and R2-Dreamer, a direct comparison on DCS or a discussion of why those baselines are omitted would make the robustness claim more complete.
  5. [Limitations] The limitation that action-predictive cues may differ from long-horizon reward-relevant information is acknowledged, but the paper does not include any task where this distinction could be probed, such as a sparse-reward or long-horizon task; a brief discussion of a concrete failure mode would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TaskSense's attention objectives and benchmark comparisons are self-contained, with the inverse-dynamics grounding assumption explicitly acknowledged rather than disguised.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The attention map m_t is produced by an MLP from the previous latent state (Eq. 1), the inverse-dynamics loss predicts the previous action from the encoded filtered observation (Eqs. 5-6), and reconstruction is conditioned on the sampled mask (Eq. 7). Each quantity is defined from data and training signals; no predicted output is fed back to define its own input. The central empirical claims are comparisons against DreamerV3 on the DeepMind Control Suite and Distracting Control Suite, which are external benchmarks with fixed reward functions, not quantities fitted by the method. The qualitative attention visualizations are post-hoc inspections, and although they are naturally consistent with the inverse-dynamics objective, this consistency is an empirical check rather than a construction-level equivalence. The paper explicitly acknowledges in the Limitations section that it assumes action-predictive features coincide with long-horizon task-relevant features, which is a stated assumption about generalization, not a circular reduction. The skeptical concern that the concatenated attention channel could act as a side-channel for action prediction is a potential validity threat to the grounding claim, but it is an architectural/empirical confound, not an instance of a prediction being equivalent to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness claims appear. The derivation and evaluation are therefore self-contained, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-chosen hyperparameters (lattice size, temperature, lambda coefficients) and on the assumption that action-predictive features are task-relevant. These are disclosed, but they are choices rather than derived constraints. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Attention lattice size (H', W') = 8x8
    Chosen by hand; controls granularity of spatial attention. Table 1.
  • Binary Concrete temperature tau = 1.0
    Fixed, no annealing; controls stochasticity of sampling. Table 1.
  • Sparsity coefficient lambda_sparse = 0.1
    Hand-set weight balancing attention sparsity in Eq. (8). Table 1.
  • Inverse dynamics coefficient lambda_inv = 1.0
    Hand-set weight on inverse-dynamics loss in Eq. (8). Table 1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Task-relevant visual information is interchangeable with action-predictive visual information.
    The inverse-dynamics objective in Eq. (5)-(6) assumes features predicting the agent's action are the features needed for solving the task. The authors flag this in the Limitations section.
  • domain assumption Filtering observations before encoding does not remove information needed for reconstruction-based imagination.
    The method reconstructs only attended regions and assumes this suffices for latent planning. Invoked throughout the Method section.
  • standard math Binary Concrete relaxation with temperature 1.0 provides a usable differentiable approximation of Bernoulli attention.
    Uses reparameterization from Maddison et al. 2016 and Jang et al. 2016.
  • domain assumption DreamerV3's RSSM and actor-critic losses remain valid when observation inputs are filtered.
    TaskSense changes only the observation interface; the paper assumes the DreamerV3 dynamics and policy optimization are unaffected. Method section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TaskSense: Focusing on What Matters in World Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLJ5JW3R

@misc{pith2026260806544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TaskSense: Focusing on What Matters in World Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLJ5JW3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06544}
}
read the original abstract

World models for visual control typically learn compact latent states by reconstructing observations, implicitly encouraging representations to preserve information across the entire visual input. However, task-relevant content often occupies only a small fraction of the observation, while background clutter and distractors consume valuable representational capacity. This mismatch between visual reconstruction and control objectives biases latent representations to model task-irrelevant visual content, diluting learning signals for control-relevant features and severely degrading downstream performance under visual distractions. We introduce TaskSense, a task-centric world modeling framework that enforces task relevance before latent encoding through a differentiable stochastic spatial attention mechanism conditioned on the previous latent state. To steer attention toward control-relevant regions, we augment training with an auxiliary inverse-dynamics objective. Rather than reconstructing the full observation, the world model reconstructs only the attended regions, encouraging latent representations to preserve task-relevant information while discarding irrelevant visual content. The decoder is further conditioned on the sampled attention map, enabling consistent reconstruction despite stochastic attention. Compared with the DreamerV3 baseline, TaskSense maintains competitive performance on the DeepMind Control Suite while consistently outperforming DreamerV3 on the Distracting Control Suite, demonstrating substantially improved robustness to visual distractions. Qualitative analysis further confirms that the learned attention, guided by inverse-dynamics supervision, consistently localizes control-relevant regions while suppressing irrelevant visual content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Dreamer and TaskSense. Dashed circles denote predicted quantities. Left: Dreamer encodes the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the learned stochastic spatial at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation study on the Distracting Control Suite for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 , year=

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01144 , year=

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603 , year=

    Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603 , year=

  3. [3]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Pretraining representations for data-efficient reinforcement learning , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04136 , year=

    Curl: Contrastive unsupervised representations for reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04136 , year=

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04955 , year=

    Temporal difference learning for model predictive control , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04955 , year=

  6. [6]

    Nature , volume=

    Mastering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model , author=. Nature , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10742 , year=

    Learning invariant representations for reinforcement learning without reconstruction , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10742 , year=

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02193 , year=

    Mastering atari with discrete world models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02193 , year=

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00588 , year=

    Transformers are sample-efficient world models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00588 , year=

  2. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Storm: Efficient stochastic transformer based world models for reinforcement learning , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  3. [11]

    Proceedings of SSST-8, eighth workshop on syntax, semantics and structure in statistical translation , pages=

    On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder--decoder approaches , author=. Proceedings of SSST-8, eighth workshop on syntax, semantics and structure in statistical translation , pages=

  4. [12]

    nature , volume=

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning , author=. nature , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

    Improving sample efficiency in model-free reinforcement learning from images , author=. Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence , volume=

  6. [14]

    The 2017 DAVIS Challenge on Video Object Segmentation , journal =

    Jordi Pont-Tuset and Federico Perazzi and Sergi Caelles and Pablo Arbel\'aez and Alexander Sorkine-Hornung and Luc. The 2017 DAVIS Challenge on Video Object Segmentation , journal =

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

    Learning to see by moving , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages=

  8. [16]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Learning task informed abstractions , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2021 , organization=

  9. [17]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , year=

    Deep reinforcement learning at the edge of the statistical precipice , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , year=

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07219 , year=

    D4rl: Datasets for deep data-driven reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07219 , year=

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12340 , year=

    Rethinking full connectivity in recurrent neural networks , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12340 , year=

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08847 , year=

    Provable rl with exogenous distractors via multistep inverse dynamics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08847 , year=

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08229 , year=

    Guaranteed discovery of control-endogenous latent states with multi-step inverse models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08229 , year=

  14. [22]

    International conference on learning representations , year=

    Conditional object-centric learning from video , author=. International conference on learning representations , year=

  15. [23]

    Conference on Robot Learning , pages=

    Masked world models for visual control , author=. Conference on Robot Learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07307 , year=

    Loss is its own reward: Self-supervision for reinforcement learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07307 , year=

  17. [25]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2017 , organization=

  18. [26]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Object-centric learning with slot attention , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06263 , year=

    Learning latent dynamic robust representations for world models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06263 , year=

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08822 , year=

    Sold: Slot object-centric latent dynamics models for relational manipulation learning from pixels , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08822 , year=

  21. [29]

    ACM Sigart Bulletin , volume=

    Dyna, an integrated architecture for learning, planning, and reacting , author=. ACM Sigart Bulletin , volume=. 1991 , publisher=

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122 , year=

    World models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122 , year=

  23. [31]

    URL https://arxiv

    Mastering diverse domains through world models, 2023 , author=. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2301.04104 , year=

  24. [32]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Learning latent dynamics for planning from pixels , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2019 , organization=

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04416 , year=

    Learning transformer-based world models with contrastive predictive coding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04416 , year=

  26. [34]

    Nature , volume=

    Mastering diverse control tasks through world models , author=. Nature , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712 , year=

    The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00712 , year=

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00690 , year=

    Deepmind control suite , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00690 , year=

  29. [37]

    Journal of artificial intelligence research , volume=

    The arcade learning environment: An evaluation platform for general agents , author=. Journal of artificial intelligence research , volume=

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02722 , year=

    The Distracting Control Suite--A Challenging Benchmark for Reinforcement Learning from Pixels , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02722 , year=

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18202 , year=

    R2-Dreamer: Redundancy-reduced world models without decoders or augmentation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18202 , year=

  32. [40]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Dreamerpro: Reconstruction-free model-based reinforcement learning with prototypical representations , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2022 , organization=

  33. [41]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  34. [42]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  35. [43]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

  36. [44]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  37. [45]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

  38. [46]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  39. [47]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  40. [48]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

  41. [49]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  42. [50]

    2023 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2023 , eprint=

  43. [51]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

Pith tools

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