MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604173138 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11056

Hindsight Optimization for Hybrid State and Action MDPs

2017· article· en· W2604173138 on OpenAlexaff
Aswin Raghavan, Scott Sanner, Roni Khardon, Prasad Tadepalli, Alan Fern

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMarkov decision processUpper and lower boundsPiecewise linear functionFormalism (music)Action selectionScalingMarkov processMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid (mixed discrete and continuous) state and action Markov Decision Processes (HSA-MDPs) provide an expressive formalism for modeling stochastic and concurrent sequential decision-making problems. Existing solvers for HSA-MDPs are either limited to very restricted transition distributions, require knowledge of domain-specific basis functions to achieve good approximations, or do not scale. We explore a domain-independent approach based on the framework of hindsight optimization (HOP) for HSA-MDPs, which uses an upper bound on the finite-horizon action values for action selection. Our main contribution is a linear time reduction to a Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP) that encodes the HOP objective, when the dynamics are specified as location-scale probability distributions parametrized by Piecewise Linear (PWL) functions of states and actions. In addition, we show how to use the same machinery to select actions based on a lower-bound generated by straight line plans. Our empirical results show that the HSA-HOP approach effectively scales to high-dimensional problems and outperforms baselines that are capable of scaling to such large hybrid MDPs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207