MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503109067

Point-Based Value Iteration for Constrained POMDPs

2012· article· en· W1503109067 on OpenAlexaff
Dongho Kim, Jaesong Lee, Kee-Eung Kim, Pascal Poupart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov decision processMathematical optimizationBellman equationComputer scienceDynamic programmingMinimaxLinear programmingValue (mathematics)ScalabilityFunction (biology)Point (geometry)Markov processMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constrained partially observable Markov decision processes (CPOMDPs) extend the standard POMDPs by allowing the specification of constraints on some aspects of the policy in addition to the optimality objective for the value function. CPOMDPs have many practical advantages over standard POMDPs since they naturally model problems involving limited resource or multiple objectives. In this paper, we show that the optimal policies in CPOMDPs can be randomized, and present exact and approximate dynamic programming methods for computing randomized optimal policies. While the exact method requires solving a minimax quadratically constrained program (QCP) in each dynamic programming update, the approximate method utilizes the point-based value update with a linear program (LP). We show that the randomized policies are significantly better than the deterministic ones. We also demonstrate that the approximate point-based method is scalable to solve large problems. 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207