MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985054922 · doi:10.1109/adprl.2014.7010633

Pseudo-MDPs and factored linear action models

2014· article· en· W1985054922 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounding overwatchComputer scienceKernel (algebra)ComputationNormalization (sociology)Mathematical optimizationAction (physics)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we introduce the concept of pseudo-MDPs to develop abstractions. Pseudo-MDPs relax the requirement that the transition kernel has to be a probability kernel. We show that the new framework captures many existing abstractions. We also introduce the concept of factored linear action models; a special case. Again, the relation of factored linear action models and existing works are discussed. We use the general framework to develop a theory for bounding the suboptimality of policies derived from pseudo-MDPs. Specializing the framework, we recover existing results. We give a leastsquares approach and a constrained optimization approach of learning the factored linear model as well as efficient computation methods. We demonstrate that the constrained optimization approach gives better performance than the least-squares approach with normalization.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207