MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012045703 · doi:10.1287/moor.27.3.545.316

Achieving Target State-Action Frequencies in Multichain Average-Reward Markov Decision Processes

2002· article· en· W2012045703 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitry Krass, O. J. Vrieze

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov decision processStochastic gameConstruct (python library)MathematicsAction (physics)Mathematical optimizationMarkov processState spaceMarkov chainState (computer science)Space (punctuation)Decision problemMathematical economicsComputer scienceAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we address a basic problem that arises naturally in average-reward Markov decision processes with constraints and/or nonstandard payoff criteria: Given a feasible state-action frequency vector (“the target”), construct a policy whose state-action frequencies match those of the target vector. While it is well known that the solution to this problem cannot, in general, be found in the space of stationary randomized policies, we construct a solution that has “ultimately stationary” structure: It consists of two stationary policies where the first one is used initially, and then the switch to the second one is made at a certain random switching time. The computational effort required to construct this solution is minimal. We also show that our problem can always be solved by a stationary policy if the original MDP is “extended” by adding certain states and actions. The solution in the original MDP is obtained by mapping the solution in the extended MDP back to the original process.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207