MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186506571

Using core beliefs for point-based value iteration

2005· article· en· W186506571 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

VenueInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimplexComputer scienceMathematical optimizationPartially observable Markov decision processSet (abstract data type)HeuristicCore (optical fiber)Simplex algorithmBellman equationPoint (geometry)Value (mathematics)Function (biology)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLinear programmingMachine learningMarkov chainCombinatoricsMarkov model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research on point-based approximation algorithms for POMDPs demonstrated that good solutions to POMDP problems can be obtained without considering the entire belief simplex. For instance, the Point Based Value Iteration (PBVI) algorithm [Pineau et al., 2003] computes the value function only for a small set of belief states and iteratively adds more points to the set as needed. A key component of the algorithm is the strategy for selecting belief points, such that the space of reachable beliefs is well covered. This paper presents a new method for selecting an initial set of representative belief points, which relies on finding first the basis for the reachable belief simplex. Our approach has better worst-case performance than the original PBVI heuristic, and performs well in several standard POMDP tasks.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.089 · 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