A Fast Pairwise Heuristic for Planning under Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
POMDP (Partially Observable Markov Decision Process) is a mathematical framework that models planning under uncertainty. Solving a POMDP is an intractable problem and even the state of the art POMDP solvers are too computationally expensive for large domains. This is a major bottleneck. In this paper, we propose a new heuristic, called the pairwise heuristic, that can be used in a one-step greedy strategy to find a near optimal solution for POMDP problems very quickly. This approach is a good candidate for large problems where real-time solution is a necessity but exact optimality of the solution is not vital. The pairwise heuristic uses the optimal solutions for pairs of states. For each pair of states in the POMDP, we find the optimal sequence of actions to resolve the uncertainty and to maximize the reward, given that the agent is uncertain about which state of the pair it is in. Then we use these sequences as a heuristic and find the optimal action in each step of the greedy strategy using this heuristic. We have tested our method on the available large classical test benchmarks in various domains. The resulting total reward is close to, if not greater than, the total reward obtained by other state of the art POMDP solvers, while the time required to find the solution is always much less.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".