Policy optimization by marginal-map probabilistic inference in generative models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most current planning methods have focused on the development of scalable approximate algorithms, they often neglect the important aspect of providing algorithmic performance guarantees, or their tightness is sacrificed to improve efficiency. In contrast, we address a challenging problem of solving POMDP planning problems approximately with a focus on solution quality to estimate the quality of such approximations and to decide when a satisfactory plan is available. 1) We demonstrate that the original task of optimizing POMDP controllers can be approached by its reformulation as the equivalent problem of marginal-MAP inference in a novel single-DBN generative model, which guarantees that the control policies computed by probabilistic inference over this model are optimal in the traditional sense. 2) We further solve a POMDP problem approximately with bounded performance guarantees by translating a corresponding marginal-MAP inference problem into its variational form, and developing two Bayesian variational inference algorithms to (i) approximate the marginal-MAP inference, and (ii) compute the upper bound of the solution. 3) The proposed approach to optimizing parameters of POMDP controllers by marginal-MAP inference with bounded performance guarantees is evaluated on several POMDP benchmark problems and the performance of the implemented variational algorithms is compared to previously developed methods.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".