MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1876478031 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.3233

Speeding Up Planning in Markov Decision Processes via Automatically Constructed Abstractions

2012· preprint· en· W1876478031 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Isaza, Csaba Szepesvári, Vadim Bulitko, Russell Greiner

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMarkov decision processSolverHierarchyDecision problemFocus (optics)State spaceShortest path problemState (computer science)Markov chainMarkov processTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider planning in stochastic shortest path (SSP) problems, a subclass of Markov Decision Problems (MDP). We focus on medium-size problems whose state space can be fully enumerated. This problem has numerous important applications, such as navigation and planning under uncertainty. We propose a new approach for constructing a multi-level hierarchy of progressively simpler abstractions of the original problem. Once computed, the hierarchy can be used to speed up planning by first finding a policy for the most abstract level and then recursively refining it into a solution to the original problem. This approach is fully automated and delivers a speed-up of two orders of magnitude over a state-of-the-art MDP solver on sample problems while returning near-optimal solutions. We also prove theoretical bounds on the loss of solution optimality resulting from the use of abstractions.

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)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207