A neuro-dynamic programming approach to the optimal stand management problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some ideas of neuro-dynamic programming (NDP) are illustrated by considering the problem of optimally managing a forest stand under uncertainty. Because reasonable growth models require state information such as height (or age), basal area, and stand diameter, as well as an indicator variable for treatments that have been performed on the stand, they can easily lead to very large state spaces that include continuous variables. Realistic stand management policies include silvicultural options such as pre-commercial and commercial thinning as well as post-harvest treatments. We are interested in problems that are stochastic in their basic growth dynamics, in market prices, and in disturbances, ranging from insects to fire to hurricanes. NDP algorithms are appropriate for problems with large dimensions that may lack a simple model of dynamics and stochastic processes. This paper looks at applying these ideas in the context of a multispecies model. Results show that policies obtained using NDP are optimal within a 95% confidence interval or better. The set of states and controls incorporated into our NDP model allows us to develop optimal policies with a level of detail not typically seen in the forestry literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".