MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W189498254 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v19i1.13365

Minimal Sufficient Explanations for Factored Markov Decision Processes

2009· article· en· W189498254 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Khan, Pascal Poupart, James P. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Markov decision processComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)TemplateDomain (mathematical analysis)Probabilistic logicSelection (genetic algorithm)Markov chainMarkov processMarkov modelMachine learningArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explaining policies of Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) is complicated due to their probabilistic and sequential nature. We present a technique to explain policies for factored MDP by populating a set of domain-independent templates. We also present a mechanism to determine a minimal set of templates that, viewed together, completely justify the policy. Our explanations can be generated automatically at run-time with no additional effort required from the MDP designer. We demonstrate our technique using the problems of advising undergraduate students in their course selection and assisting people with dementia in completing the task of handwashing. We also evaluate our explanations for course-advising through a user study involving students.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207