MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105960367

Bounding Performance Loss in Approximate MDP Homomorphisms

2008· article· en· W2105960367 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Taylor, Doina Precup, Prakash Panagaden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomomorphismMetric (unit)Markov decision processBounding overwatchBounded functionHeuristicsMathematicsKernel (algebra)Discrete mathematicsUpper and lower boundsMarkov processComputer scienceCombinatoricsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We define a metric for measuring behavior similarity between states in a Markov decision process (MDP), which takes action similarity into account. We show that the kernel of our metric corresponds exactly to the classes of states defined by MDP homomorphisms (Ravindran & Barto, 2003). We prove that the differ-ence in the optimal value function of different states can be upper-bounded by the value of this metric, and that the bound is tighter than previous bounds pro-vided by bisimulation metrics (Ferns et al. 2004, 2005). Our results hold both for discrete and for continuous actions. We provide an algorithm for constructing approximate homomorphisms, by using this metric to identify states that can be grouped together, as well as actions that can be matched. Previous research on this topic is based mainly on heuristics. 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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207