MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734058336 · doi:10.1609/socs.v8i1.18421

Non-Markovian Rewards Expressed in LTL: Guiding Search Via Reward Shaping

2021· article· en· W2734058336 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

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov decision processLinear temporal logicAutomatonComputer scienceMarkov processTemporal logicMathematical optimizationPlannerState (computer science)Quality (philosophy)Finite-state machineTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an approach to solving Markov Decision Processes with non-Markovian rewards specified in Linear Temporal Logic interpreted over finite traces (LTL-f). Our approach integrates automata representations of LTL-f formulae into compiled MDPs that can be solved by off-the-shelf MDP planners, exploiting reward shaping to help guide search. Experiments with state-of-the-art UCT-based MDP planner PROST show automata-based reward shaping to be an effective method to guide search, producing solutions of superior quality, while maintaining policy optimality guarantees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.263 · 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