MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219400200 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9655

Approximate Linear Programming for Constrained Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes

2015· article· en· W2219400200 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascal Poupart, Aarti Malhotra, Pei Pei, Kee-Eung Kim, Bongseok Goh, Michael Bowling

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
KeywordsObservablePartially observable Markov decision processMarkov decision processMathematical optimizationBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceLinear programmingSuiteSequence (biology)Dynamic programmingController (irrigation)State (computer science)Markov processMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many situations, it is desirable to optimize a sequence of decisions by maximizing a primary objective while respecting some constraints with respect to secondary objectives. Such problems can be naturally modeled as constrained partially observable Markov decision processes (CPOMDPs) when the environment is partially observable. In this work, we describe a technique based on approximate linear programming to optimize policies in CPOMDPs. The optimization is performed offline and produces a finite state controller with desirable performance guarantees. The approach outperforms a constrained version of point-based value iteration on a suite of benchmark problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207