MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987974668 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143861

Learning predictive state representations using non-blind policies

2006· article· en· W1987974668 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceState (computer science)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive state representations (PSRs) are powerful models of non-Markovian decision processes that differ from traditional models (e.g., HMMs, POMDPs) by representing state using only observable quantities. Because of this, PSRs can be learned solely using data from interaction with the process. The majority of existing techniques, though, explicitly or implicitly require that this data be gathered using a blind policy, where actions are selected independently of preceding observations. This is a severe limitation for practical learning of PSRs. We present two methods for fixing this limitation in most of the existing PSR algorithms: one when the policy is known and one when it is not. We then present an efficient optimization for computing good exploration policies to be used when learning a PSR. The exploration policies, which are not blind, significantly lower the amount of data needed to build an accurate model, thus demonstrating the importance of non-blind policies. 1.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207