Learning Predictive State Representations From Non-Uniform Sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive state representations (PSR) have emerged as a powerful method for modelling partially observable environments. PSR learning algorithms can build models for predicting all observable variables, or predicting only some of them conditioned on others (e.g., actions or exogenous variables). In the latter case, which we call conditional modelling, the accuracy of different estimates of the conditional probabilities for a fixed dataset can vary significantly, due to the limited sampling of certain conditions. This can have negative consequences on the PSR parameter estimation process, which are not taken into account by the current state-of-the-art PSR spectral learning algorithms. In this paper, we examine closely conditional modelling within the PSR framework. We first establish a new positive but surprisingly non-trivial result: a conditional model can never be larger than the complete model. Then, we address the core shortcoming of existing PSR spectral learning methods for conditional models by incorporating an additional step in the process, which can be seen as a type of matrix denoising. We further refine this objective by adding penalty terms for violations of the system dynamics matrix structure, which improves the PSR predictive performance. Empirical evaluations on both synthetic and real datasets highlight the advantages of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".