MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500894465

Value-directed sampling methods for monitoring POMDPs

2001· article· en· W1500894465 on OpenAlex

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
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processMarkov decision processComputer scienceBellman equationContext (archaeology)Sampling (signal processing)Mathematical optimizationAdaptive samplingFunction (biology)Particle filterMarkov processValue (mathematics)Markov chainArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsMarkov modelKalman filterStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of approximate belief-state monitoring using particle filtering for the purposes of implementing a policy for a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). While particle filtering has becomea widely used tool in AI for monitoring dynamical systems, rather scant attention has been paid to their use in the context of decision making. Assuming the existence of a value function, we derive error bounds on decision quality associated with filtering using importance sampling. We also describe an adaptive procedure that can be used to dynamically determine the number of samples required to meet specific error bounds. Empirical evidence is offered supporting this technique as a profitable means of directing sampling effort where it is needed to distinguish policies. 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207