MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565394148

Solving POMDPs with continuous or large discrete observation spaces

2005· article· en· W1565394148 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

VenueDiscovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationMarkov decision processPartially observable Markov decision processPartition (number theory)Computer scienceA priori and a posterioriObservableTask (project management)Domain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical optimizationSpace (punctuation)Markov chainMarkov processTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsMarkov modelMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe methods to solve partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) with continuous or large discrete observation spaces. Realistic problems often have rich observation spaces, posing significant problems for standard POMDP algorithms that require explicit enumeration of the observations. This problem is usually approached by imposing an a priori discretisation on the observation space, which can be sub-optimal for the decision making task. However, since only those observations that would change the policy need to be distinguished, the decision problem itself induces a lossless partitioning of the observation space. This paper demonstrates how to find this partition while computing a policy, and how the resulting discretisation of the observation space reveals the relevant features of the application domain. The algorithms are demonstrated on a toy example and on a realistic assisted living task. 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.246 · 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