Practical Linear Value-approximation Techniques for First-order MDPs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on approximate linear programming (ALP) techniques for first-order Markov Decision Processes (FOMDPs) represents the value function linearly w.r.t. a set of first-order basis functions and uses linear programming techniques to determine suitable weights. This approach offers the advantage that it does not require simplification of the first-order value function, and allows one to solve FOMDPs independent of a specific domain instantiation. In this paper, we address several questions to enhance the applicability of this work: (1) Can we extend the first-order ALP framework to approximate policy iteration to address performance deficiencies of previous approaches? (2) Can we automatically generate basis functions and evaluate their impact on value function quality? (3) How can we decompose intractable problems with universally quantified rewards into tractable subproblems? We propose answers to these questions along with a number of novel optimizations and provide a comparative empirical evaluation on logistics problems from the ICAPS 2004 Probabilistic Planning Competition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it