MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153601367

A Novel Prioritization Technique for Solving Markov Decision Processes

2008· article· en· W2153601367 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
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackupComputer scienceMarkov decision processPrioritizationOverhead (engineering)Metric (unit)Markov processMathematical optimizationSequence (biology)Function (biology)Markov chainComputationDistributed computingAlgorithmMachine learningMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of computing an optimal value func-tion for Markov decision processes. Since finding this func-tion quickly and accurately requires substantial computa-tion effort, techniques that accelerate fundamental algorithms have been a main focus of research. Among them prioriti-zation solvers suggest solutions to the problem of ordering backup operations. Prioritization techniques for ordering the sequence of backup operations reduce the number of needed backups considerably, but involve significant overhead. This paper provides a new way to order backups, based on a map-ping of states space into a metric space. Empirical evaluation verifies that our method achieves the best balance between the number of backups executed and the effort required to prior-itized backups, showing order of magnitude improvement in runtime over number of benchmarks.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207