(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 13 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | reinforcement learning for continuous control— “With a focus on problems in continuous control, I will try to disentangle the similarities and differences of methods of the complementary perspectives and present a set of challenging problems whose solution will require significant input from both sets of practitioners.” | |
| claim-type | critique— “In particular, we will see that the so-called “model-free” methods popular in deep reinforcement learning are considerably less effective in both theory and practice than simple model-based schemes when applied to LQR.” | |
| method — evidence | — “This survey aims to provide a language for the control and reinforcement learning communities to begin communicating, highlighting what each can learn from the other.” | |
| transfer | from control theory (optimal control): framing and analyzing reinforcement learning with the tools of optimal control, using the Linear Quadratic Regulator as the baseline— “the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) with unknown dynamics, perhaps the simplest and best-studied problem in optimal control” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | A DEFINITION IS OFFERED AND THE OBJECTION TO IT IS VOICED IN THE SAME BREATH, IN ANOTHER FIELD'S VOICE: a control engineer MIGHT BE PUZZLED by the definition and interject that this is PRECISELY THE SCOPE OF CONTROL THEORY - and the consequence named is that the two communities remaining PRACTICALLY DISJOINT has led to the CO-DEVELOPMENT OF VASTLY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE SAME PROBLEMS— “Reinforcement learning (RL) is the subfield of machine learning that studies how to use past data to enhance the future manipulation of a dynamical system. A control engineer might be puzzled by such a definition and interject that this is precisely the scope of control theory. That the RL and control communities remain practically disjoint… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | THE SURVEY'S STATED PURPOSE IS TO SUPPLY A LANGUAGE, NOT A RESULT: it aims to provide A LANGUAGE for the two communities TO BEGIN COMMUNICATING, highlighting what each can learn from the other. The deliverable is a shared vocabulary between fields that already work on the same problems— “This survey aims to provide a language for the control and reinforcement learning communities to begin communicating, highlighting what each can learn from the other.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | EACH FIELD IS CHARACTERISED IN A SINGLE CLAUSE AND THE CONTRAST IS PUT IN THE MODELS: controls is the theory of designing complex actions FROM WELL-SPECIFIED MODELS, while reinforcement learning often makes intricate MODEL-FREE predictions FROM DATA ALONE - and the sentence immediately after says that YET BOTH aim at systems doing the same three things— “Controls is the theory of designing complex actions from well-specified models, while reinforcement learning often makes intricate, model-free predictions from data alone. Yet both RL and control aim to design systems that use richly structured perception, perform planning and control that adequately adapt to environmental changes, and… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | ONE FIELD IS DEFINED AS ANOTHER FIELD'S PROBLEM WITH A SINGLE CONDITION CHANGED: the main view of the survey is of reinforcement learning AS OPTIMAL CONTROL WHEN THE DYNAMICS ARE UNKNOWN - so the whole of one discipline is recast as a special case of another, and the difference between them is reduced to what is known about the system— “Reinforcement learning is the study of how to use past data to enhance the future manipulation of a dynamical system. How does this differ from ordinary machine learning? The main view of this survey is of reinforcement learning as optimal control when the dynamics are unknown.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | THE EVALUATION WORD IS DECLARED NOT CLEARLY DEFINED AND THE COMPETING OPERATIONALISATIONS ARE SPELLED OUT: is an algorithm BEST if it crosses some reward threshold in the fewest samples, or if it achieves the highest reward given a fixed budget of samples, OR MAYBE THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND. The word by which methods are ranked is shown to have at least three readings that would rank them differently— “Here “best” is also not clearly defined. Do we decide an algorithm is best if it crosses some reward threshold in the fewest number of samples? Or is it best if it achieves the highest reward given a fixed budget of samples? Or maybe there’s a middle ground?” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | THE SAME OPERATION HAS A DIFFERENT NAME IN THE OTHER FIELD, AND THE DIFFERENCES THAT SURVIVE THE TRANSLATION ARE NAMED: estimation of dynamical systems IS CALLED SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION IN THE CONTROL COMMUNITY - and it DIFFERS from conventional estimation because the inputs must be chosen to excite various degrees of freedom and because dynamical outputs are correlated. The translation is given AND its residue is stated— “Estimation of dynamical systems is called system identification in the control community [48]. System Identification differs from conventional estimation because one needs to carefully choose the right inputs to excite various degrees of freedom and because dynamical outputs are correlated over time with the parameters we hope to estimate… | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | A SHORT NAME IS CHOSEN OVER THE COMMUNITY'S OWN, AND THE COMMUNITY'S IS CALLED VERBOSE: the estimated model is called THE NOMINAL MODEL and designing control as if it were true is called NOMINAL CONTROL - which is COMMONLY VERBOSELY REFERRED TO AS control under the principle of certainty equivalence. The author renames an existing concept for economy and says that is what he is doing— “The estimated model is called the nominal model, and I will refer to control design assuming the estimated model is true as nominal control. Nominal control, commonly verbosely referred to as “control under the principle of certainty equivalence,” serves as a useful baseline algorithm.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | A FIELD'S OWN CATEGORY TERM IS PUT IN SCARE QUOTES WHILE ITS CONTENTS ARE TESTED: the SO-CALLED MODEL-FREE methods popular in deep reinforcement learning are found CONSIDERABLY LESS EFFECTIVE in both theory and practice than simple model-based schemes on the baseline problem - so the label is held at arm's length in the same sentence that reports the result— “In particular, we will see that the so-called “model-free” methods popular in deep reinforcement learning are considerably less effective in both theory and practice than simple model-based schemes when applied to LQR.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | A FIELD'S CENTRAL DICHOTOMY IS ANNOUNCED AS SOMETHING TO BE DISSOLVED RATHER THAN ADJUDICATED: having laid out the split between model-free and model-based methodologies, the author states that he will argue the two perspectives CAN BE UNIFIED, COMBINING THEIR RELATIVE MERITS - the contribution is to remove the opposition, not to win it— “I then argue that model-free and model-based perspectives can be unified, combining their relative merits.” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | THE COMPARISON IS MADE POSSIBLE BY FORCING BOTH FIELDS ONTO ONE SHARED PROBLEM: the two sets of techniques are put ON THE SAME FOOTING through a case study of the linear quadratic regulator with unknown dynamics, and that baseline is what is said to ILLUMINATE THE VARIOUS TRADE-OFFS. A common benchmark is the instrument that makes two vocabularies commensurable— “Next, I try to put RL and control techniques on the same footing through a case study of the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) with unknown dynamics. This baseline will illuminate the various trade-offs associated with techniques from RL and control.” | mechanisms[9] |
| mechanism | THE ORACLE MODEL IS NAMED, AND ITS COMPLEXITY RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBOURING FIELD IS STATED: the query protocol IS CALLED EPISODIC REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, and it is described as CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPLICATED than the oracle models typically considered in optimization, because each episode returns a complex feedback signal of states and rewards— “This is our oracle model and is called episodic reinforcement learning (See, for example Chapter 3 of Sutton and Barto [76], Chapter 2 of Puterman [58], or Dann and Brunskill [24]). We want the expected reward to be high for our derived policy, but we also need the number of oracle queries to be small. This oracle model is considerably more… | mechanisms[10] |
| mechanism | A WHOLE FIELD'S COLLOQUIAL MEANING IS NAMED AND THEN SET ASIDE: most of the time when the term MACHINE LEARNING is used colloquially it refers to PREDICTION, and from that perspective even niche topics are prediction tasks - after which the paper states what makes its own subject different, that there are TWO SPECIAL VARIABLES— “Most of the time when the term machine learning is used colloquially, it refers to this sort of prediction. From this perspective, niche topics like semi-supervised learning [91] and matrix completion [34] are prediction tasks as well. By contrast, there are two special variables in reinforcement learning, u and r. The goal now is to analyze… | mechanisms[11] |
| builds-on | reinforcement learning and optimal control theory— “tools from reinforcement learning and control might be combined” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the System Level Synthesis (SLS) framework [50, 84]— “We leverage the recently developed System Level Synthesis (SLS) framework [50, 84] to solve this robust optimization problem.” | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | the high-variance findings of Henderson et al. and Islam et al. for deep RL [35, 36]— “Henderson et al and Islam et al observed this phenomenon with deep reinforcement learning methods, but our results on linear controllers suggest that such high variability will be a symptom of all model-free methods [35, 36].” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | random search - THE SAME METHOD UNDER FOUR NAMES: pure random search in RL, a (mu,lambda) Evolution Strategy in evolutionary computation, and studied again under stochastic approximation and under bandits - four literatures, one procedure, and this paper is where they are listed— “Random search was also discovered by the evolutionary algorithms community, where it is called a (µ, λ)-Evolution Strategy [15, 66]. Random search has also been studied in the context of stochastic approximation” | senses[0] |
| sense | model-free - A LABEL THAT DENIES WHAT THE METHOD CARRIES: the name marks the absence of an explicit dynamics model while the modelling assumptions remain, built into the algorithm— “However, this does not mean that 7 modeling is not heavily built into the assumptions of model-free RL algorithms” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | senses[1] |
| sense | state-action pair - TWO NOTATIONS FOR ONE OBJECT: (x, u) in control and (s, a) in reinforcement learning, reconciled here by the author choosing one on purpose and saying so— “I am throughout adopting the control-centric notation of denoting state-action pairs as (x, u) rather than (s, a) as is commonly used in reinforcement learning” | senses[2] |
| edge | random search —renamed-across-fields→ Evolution Strategy— “Random search was also discovered by the evolutionary algorithms community, where it is called a (µ, λ)-Evolution Strategy” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | discount factor —causes→ Bellman equation — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the discount factor had to be introduced IN ORDER TO get a simple Bellman equation; causes is loose.— “Also troubling is the fact that we had to introduce the discount factor in order to get a simple Bellman equation” | concept_edges[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the practical readiness of the whole area: significant CHALLENGES AT THE CONTROL-LEARNING INTERFACE remain— “Challenges at the control-learning interface” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the implementability of anything described: MY AIM WILL BE TO HIGHLIGHT THE MAIN CONCEPTUAL IDEAS ... AND TO AVOID EMBROILING MYSELF IN A THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF THE MYRIAD OF TECHNICAL DETAILS— “Throughout, my aim will be to highlight the main conceptual ideas of different approaches and to avoid embroiling myself in a thorough discussion of the myriad of technical details required to make all of the statements crisply precise.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the scope of every conclusion: THIS SURVEY HAS FOCUSED ON EPISODIC REINFORCEMENT LEARNING AND HAS STEERED CLEAR OF A MUCH HARDER PROBLEM: ADAPTIVE CONTROL— “This survey has focused on “episodic” reinforcement learning and has steered clear of a much harder problem: adaptive control.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the model-versus-value comparison: WHILE COMPARING WORST-CASE UPPER BOUNDS IS CERTAINLY NOT VALID, IT IS SUGGESTIVE THAT - declared invalid and offered as suggestive only— “While comparing worst-case upper bounds is certainly not valid, it is suggestive that, as mentioned above, temporal differencing methods use only one defining equation per time step whereas model estimation uses d equations per time step.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — any reading of the survey as covering deep RL: I HAVE SPENT NO TIME DISCUSSING DEEP REINFORCEMENT LEARNING— “Note that in this section I have spent no time discussing deep reinforcement learning.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the empirical evidence for every method surveyed: HAVING ONLY A FEW SIMULATION BENCHMARKS ENCOURAGES OVERFITTING TO THESE BENCHMARKS— “Benchmarking is difficult, and having only a few simulation benchmarks encourages overfitting to these benchmarks.” | limitations[5] |
| evidence status note | limitation — THE '7' IN THE QUOTE IS NOT A WORD OF THE SENTENCE - it is layout furniture (a page number or note mark) that this copy leaves between 'that' and 'modeling'.— “However, this does not mean that 7 modeling is not heavily built into the assumptions of model-free RL algorithms” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — a comparison presented as model-free versus model-based: the author states that modelling is heavily built into the assumptions of model-free RL algorithms, so the label does not mark the absence of a model— “However, this does not mean that 7 modeling is not heavily built into the assumptions of model-free RL algorithms” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — results that depend on the discounted formulation: the discount factor was introduced in order to obtain a simple Bellman equation, which the author flags as troubling rather than as a property of the problem— “Also troubling is the fact that we had to introduce the discount factor in order to get a simple Bellman equation” | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — a definition of reinforcement learning as the study of learning to act: a control engineer would say this is precisely the scope of control theory, so the boundary between the two fields is a matter of vocabulary rather than of subject— “A control engineer might be puzzled by such a definition and interject that this is precisely the scope of… | limitations[8] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — EXTENDED, not trimmed: the first cut stopped one clause short of "and because dynamical outputs are correlated", which the tag depends on. Where the next clause carries the claim, widening the span beats weakening the tag. | mechanisms[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | significant challenges remain at the control-learning interface | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The survey deliberately stays at the level of conceptual ideas and omits the technical detail needed to make its statements precise. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The scope is restricted to episodic RL and excludes the harder adaptive-control setting. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The theoretical comparison between value-function estimation and model estimation rests on worst-case upper bounds, which the author concedes is not a valid comparison. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Function approximation, and deep RL specifically, is set aside rather than analysed. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The empirical evidence rests on a small set of simulation benchmarks that invite overfitting. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The label model-free does not mean the method is free of modelling; the author says modelling is heavily built into its assumptions. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | A discounting device had to be introduced to obtain a tractable equation, and the author names that as troubling. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| limitation | The scope claimed for the field is stated to be precisely the scope of a different, older field. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[8] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | model-free RL is less effective than simple model-based schemes on LQR Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | RL is best viewed as optimal control when the dynamics are unknown Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | RL is harder than supervised learning but can be more valuable Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | model-free and model-based perspectives can be unified Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 2 special variables — the extra variables u and r distinguishing RL Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | N time steps — horizon over which expected reward is maximized Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | mL cost — total cost of m queries at horizon length L Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| variable | policy (decision variable optimized over) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | reward (per-step objective to be maximized) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | horizon length L (episode length in the oracle model) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | state of the system (variables of the governing difference equation) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | control action (variables of the governing difference equation) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| variable | disturbance (variables of the governing difference equation) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| definition | reinforcement learning (RL) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | control policy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | trajectory Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | episodic reinforcement learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| key-terms | reinforcement learning, continuous control, optimal control, dynamical system, policy, linear quadratic regulator, model-free, model-based, trajectory, reward, control action |
| concept | reinforcement learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | random search Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | Evolution Strategy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | discount factor Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | Bellman equation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| bootstrap | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| regression β | as written: least squares Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | regression — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| variance σ² | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| evidence status note | variance — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824