MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223319633

POMDP sensor scheduling with adaptive sampling

2014· article· en· W2223319633 on OpenAlexaff
Vikram Krishnamurthy

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.

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)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Information FusionSame topicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207