MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165622730 · doi:10.1287/opre.1080.0685

Percentile Optimization for Markov Decision Processes with Parameter Uncertainty

2009· article· en· W2165622730 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

VenueOperations Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHEC Montréal
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsAmbiguityComputer scienceMarkov decision processMathematical optimizationParametric statisticsSet (abstract data type)PercentileMarkov chainMarkov processProcess (computing)Decision processOperations researchMachine learningMathematicsManagement scienceStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markov decision processes are an effective tool in modeling decision making in uncertain dynamic environments. Because the parameters of these models typically are estimated from data or learned from experience, it is not surprising that the actual performance of a chosen strategy often differs significantly from the designer's initial expectations due to unavoidable modeling ambiguity. In this paper, we present a set of percentile criteria that are conceptually natural and representative of the trade-off between optimistic and pessimistic views of the question. We study the use of these criteria under different forms of uncertainty for both the rewards and the transitions. Some forms are shown to be efficiently solvable and others highly intractable. In each case, we outline solution concepts that take parametric uncertainty into account in the process of decision making.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.336 · 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