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 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

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
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