MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W178133203 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7796

Policy Gradient Planning for Environmental Decision Making with Existing Simulators

2011· article· en· W178133203 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Crowley, David Poole

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameterized complexityComputer scienceMarkov chainMarkov decision processDomain (mathematical analysis)Operations researchMathematical optimizationMarkov processMachine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In environmental and natural resource planning domains actions are taken at a large number of locations over multiple time periods. These problems have enormous state and action spaces, spatial correlation between actions, uncertainty and complex utility models. We present an approach for modeling these planning problems as factored Markov decision processes. The reward model can contain local and global components as well as spatial constraints between locations. The transition dynamics can be provided by existing simulators developed by domain experts. We propose a landscape policy defined as the equilibrium distribution of a Markov chain built from many locally-parameterized policies. This policy is optimized using a policy gradient algorithm. Experiments using a forestry simulator demonstrate the algorithm's ability to devise policies for sustainable harvest planning of a forest.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207