MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096976789

Theoretical Analysis of Heuristic Search Methods for Online POMDPs.

2008· article· en· W2096976789 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Ross, Joëlle Pineau, Brahim Chaib-draa

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsScalabilityComputer scienceHeuristicOnline searchMathematical optimizationOnline algorithmArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsInformation retrieval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning in partially observable environments remains a challenging problem, despite significant recent advances in offline approximation techniques. A few online methods have also been proposed recently, and proven to be remarkably scalable, but without the theoretical guarantees of their offline counterparts. Thus it seems natural to try to unify offline and online techniques, preserving the theoretical properties of the former, and exploiting the scalability of the latter. In this paper, we provide theoretical guarantees on an anytime algorithm for POMDPs which aims to reduce the error made by approximate offline value iteration algorithms through the use of an efficient online searching procedure. The algorithm uses search heuristics based on an error analysis of lookahead search, to guide the online search towards reachable beliefs with the most potential to reduce error. We provide a general theorem showing that these search heuristics are admissible, and lead to complete and ε-optimal algorithms. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the strongest theoretical result available for online POMDP solution methods. We also provide empirical evidence showing that our approach is also practical, and can find (provably) near-optimal solutions in reasonable time.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207