MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541317966 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7740

Robust Policy Computation in Reward-Uncertain MDPs Using Nondominated Policies

2010· article· en· W1541317966 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretMarkov decision processMinimaxComputer scienceMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)ComputationParallelsExploitMathematicsMarkov processAlgorithmMachine learningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precise specification of reward functions for Markov decision processes (MDPs) is often extremely difficult, motivating research into both reward elicitation and the robust solution of MDPs with imprecisely specified reward (IRMDPs). We develop new techniques for the robust optimization of IRMDPs, using the minimax regret decision criterion, that exploit the set of nondominated policies, i.e., policies that are optimal for some instantiation of the imprecise reward function. Drawing parallels to POMDP value functions, we devise a Witness-style algorithm for identifying nondominated policies. We also examine several new algorithms for computing minimax regret using the nondominated set, and examine both practically and theoretically the impact of approximating this set. Our results suggest that a small subset of the nondominated set can greatly speed up computation, yet yield very tight approximations to minimax regret.

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)0.001
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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.212 · 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