AI 中文总结
研究自适应智能体在不同定时条件下的调节，发现间歇性预期控制可降低平均调节负担，其效果不受切换调度影响，确定了依赖历史的自适应系统中与设计相关的定时原则，表明间歇性预期控制能减轻长期恢复负担。
AI 中文摘要
自适应智能体并非总是在相同的定时条件下进行调节。有时在干扰完全进入内部状态之前就能开始稳定，有时则只能在干扰扎根后恢复。一种简单的预期是，在这些条件之间切换的智能体应表现得像两种固定情况的加权平均：在反应性恢复中花费的时间越多，调节负担越大。本文表明这种预期可能不成立。在一个保留状态历史的模拟自适应智能体中，在持续反应性控制比持续预期性控制成本更高的工作点上，间歇性地进行预期性控制会使平均调节负担低于固定模式混合预测的值。这种效应在周期性和随机切换调度下都会出现。高统计量运行解决了每个测试调度中的负非线性切换惩罚。结果确定了一个与设计相关的定时原则。在依赖历史的自适应系统中，保持有序的负担不仅取决于智能体在每种模式下花费的时间，干扰和恢复进入状态的顺序也会改变后续负担。因此，间歇性预期控制可能与其说是一种部分调节失败，不如说是一种减轻长期恢复负担的机制。
英文摘要
Adaptive agents do not always regulate under the same timing conditions. Sometimes stabilization can begin before a disturbance has fully entered the internal state; at other times the agent can only recover after disruption has taken hold. A simple expectation is that an agent moving between these conditions should behave like a weighted average of the two fixed cases: the more time spent in reactive recovery, the greater the regulatory burden. This paper shows that expectation can fail. In a simulated adaptive agent with retained state history, at an operating point where sustained reactive control is more costly than sustained anticipatory control, intermittent access to anticipatory control reduces the mean regulatory burden below the value predicted by a fixed-mode mixture. The effect appears under both periodic and stochastic switching schedules: losing anticipatory access does not simply dilute its benefit, and restoring it intermittently can reorganize the later regulatory burden. High-statistics runs (N = 1000 matched replicates per schedule) resolve a negative nonlinear switching penalty across every tested schedule. The effect is small but consistent: about half a percent of the mean gain, with 63-68% of replicates falling below zero. Late-window diagnostics reveal no unresolved upward accumulation of regulatory burden. The result identifies a design-relevant timing principle. In history-dependent adaptive systems, the burden of remaining organized is not set only by how much time an agent spends in each mode; the order in which disturbance and recovery enter the state can change the subsequent burden. Intermittent anticipatory control may therefore act less like a partial failure of regulation than like a mechanism for reducing the long-term burden of recovery.
Comments20 pages, 10 figures, 4 tables
