MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010225880 · doi:10.5555/777092.777132

A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems

2002· article· en· W2010225880 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
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processComputer scienceMarkov decision processParameterized complexityPreference elicitationPreferenceExploitDecision problemArtificial intelligenceMarkov processState spaceDecision theoryDecision qualityMachine learningMarkov chainMarkov modelMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preference elicitation is a key problem facing the deployment of intelligent systems that make or rec-ommend decisions on the behalf of users. Since not all aspects of a utility function have the same im-pact on object-level decision quality, determining which information to extract from a user is itself a sequential decision problem, balancing the amount of elicitation effort and time with decision quality. We formulate this problem as a partially-observable Markov decision process (POMDP). Because of the continuous nature of the state and action spaces of this POMDP, standard techniques cannot be used to solve it. We describe methods that exploit the spe-cial structure of preference elicitation to deal with parameterized belief states over the continuous state space, and gradient techniques for optimizing pa-rameterized actions. These methods can be used with a number of different belief state representa-tions, including mixture models. 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations276
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207