Simulation-Based Approximate Policy Iteration with Generalized Logistic Functions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an approximate dynamic programming method based on simulation, policy iteration, a postdecision state formulation, and a logistic value function approximation. This method was developed as part of our efforts to determine whether nonlinear value function approximations could provide cost-effective policies for advance patient scheduling problems, and as a way of identifying the main advantages and disadvantages of using simulation versus linear programming to approximately solve dynamic capacity allocation problems. We first apply the proposed method to a queueing problem and then study a more practical application based on an advance multipriority patient scheduling problem. We investigate the quality and practical implications of the resulting appointment scheduling policies using simulation, and compare their performance to that of four other policies. Patient scheduling policies obtained by the new method not only depend on the number of appointments already booked on each day but also on the overall system workload. In particular, these policies provide lower discounted cost values and shorter average wait times for higher priority patients than policies directly obtained using linear programming and an affine value function approximation in the predecision state variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it