MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156211713 · doi:10.1287/moor.1090.0397

Markov Decision Processes with Arbitrary Reward Processes

2009· article· en· W2156211713 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMarkov decision processRegretHindsight biasReinforcement learningMathematical optimizationMathematicsQ-learningMarkov processRealization (probability)Function (biology)TrajectoryMarkov chainProcess (computing)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a learning problem where the decision maker interacts with a standard Markov decision process, with the exception that the reward functions vary arbitrarily over time. We show that, against every possible realization of the reward process, the agent can perform as well—in hindsight—as every stationary policy. This generalizes the classical no-regret result for repeated games. Specifically, we present an efficient online algorithm—in the spirit of reinforcement learning—that ensures that the agent's average performance loss vanishes over time, provided that the environment is oblivious to the agent's actions. Moreover, it is possible to modify the basic algorithm to cope with instances where reward observations are limited to the agent's trajectory. We present further modifications that reduce the computational cost by using function approximation and that track the optimal policy through infrequent changes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.302 · 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