MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527719492 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3887

Value-Directed Belief State Approximation for POMDPs

2013· article· en· W1527719492 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processMarkov decision processHeuristicComputer scienceBellman equationMathematical optimizationState (computer science)Projection (relational algebra)Divergence (linguistics)Approximation errorMarkov processApproximation algorithmObservableExpected utility hypothesisDecision problemFunction (biology)MathematicsAlgorithmMathematical economicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem belief-state monitoring for the purposes of implementing a policy for a partially-observable Markov decision process (POMDP), specifically how one might approximate the belief state. Other schemes for belief-state approximation (e.g., based on minimixing a measures such as KL-diveregence between the true and estimated state) are not necessarily appropriate for POMDPs. Instead we propose a framework for analyzing value-directed approximation schemes, where approximation quality is determined by the expected error in utility rather than by the error in the belief state itself. We propose heuristic methods for finding good projection schemes for belief state estimation - exhibiting anytime characteristics - given a POMDP value fucntion. We also describe several algorithms for constructing bounds on the error in decision quality (expected utility) associated with acting in accordance with a given belief state approximation.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.130 · 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