MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170296074

Equivalence relations in fully and partially observable Markov decision processes

2009· article· en· W2170296074 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 institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservabilityEquivalence (formal languages)ObservableMathematicsBisimulationLogical equivalenceMarkov processEquivalence relationPartially observable Markov decision processMarkov chainMarkov kernelMarkov decision processDiscrete mathematicsMarkov modelMathematical economicsApplied mathematicsVariable-order Markov modelStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore equivalence relations between states in Markov Decision Processes and Partially Observ-able Markov Decision Processes. We focus on two different equivalence notions: bisimulation [Givan et al., 2003] and a notion of trace equivalence, un-der which states are considered equivalent if they generate the same conditional probability distribu-tions over observation sequences (where the condi-tioning is on action sequences). We show that the relationship between these two equivalence notions changes depending on the amount and nature of the partial observability. We also present an alternate characterization of bisimulation based on trajectory equivalence. 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207