MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223319633

POMDP sensor scheduling with adaptive sampling

2014· article· en· W2223319633 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

VenueInternational Conference on Information Fusion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processComputer scienceMarkov decision processScheduling (production processes)Markov processMathematical optimizationFalse alarmSampling (signal processing)Markov chainReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceMarkov modelMathematicsMachine learningStatisticsFilter (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the sensor scheduling problem where a decision maker can choose from a finite set of sampling intervals to pick the next time to observe the noisy state of Markovian target. The aim is to optimize an objective comprising of false alarm, delay cost and cumulative measurement sampling cost. Taking more frequent measurements yields accurate estimates but incurs a higher measurement cost. Making an erroneous decision too soon incurs a false alarm penalty. Waiting too long to declare the target state incurs a delay penalty. The problem is an instance of a partially observed Markov decision process (POMDP). This paper reviews structural results in POMDPs. The paper then shows that under reasonable conditions, the optimal strategy has the following intuitive structure: when the posterior distribution of the Markov chain is away from the target state, look less frequently; while if the posterior is close to the target state, look more frequently.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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