MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186506571

Using core beliefs for point-based value iteration

2005· article· en· W186506571 on OpenAlexaff
Masoumeh T. Izadi, Ajit Rajwade, Doina Precup

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207