MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760276144 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v27i1.13803

Analytic Decision Analysis via Symbolic Dynamic Programming for Parameterized Hybrid MDPs

2017· article· en· W2760276144 on OpenAlexaff
Shamin Kinathil, Harold Soh, Scott Sanner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameterized complexityMathematical optimizationComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)DiscretizationNonlinear programmingConvex optimizationDynamic programmingScalabilityPiecewiseOptimization problemNonlinear systemMathematicsRegular polygonAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision analysis w.r.t. unknown parameters is a critical task in decision-making under uncertainty. For example, we may need to (i) perform inverse learning of the cost parameters of a multi-objective reward based on observed agent behavior; (ii) perform sensitivity analyses of policies to various parameter settings; or (iii) analyze and optimize policy performance as a function of policy parameters. When such problems have mixed discrete and continuous state and/or action spaces, this leads to parameterized hybrid MDPs (PHMDPs) that are often approximately solved via discretization, sampling, and/or local gradient methods (when optimization is involved). In this paper we combine two recent advances that allow for the first exact solution and optimization of PHMDPs. We first show how each of the aforementioned use cases can be formalized as PHMDPs, which can then be solved via an extension of symbolic dynamic programming (SDP) even when the solution is piecewise nonlinear. Secondly, we can leverage recent advances in non-convex solvers that require symbolic forms of the objective function for non-convex global optimization in (i), (ii), and (iii) using SDP to derive symbolic solutions for each PHMDP formalization. We demonstrate the efficacy and scalability of our optimal analytical framework on nonlinear examples of each of the aforementioned use cases.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207