MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953034337 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.6840

Solving Asymmetric Decision Problems with Influence Diagrams

2013· preprint· en· W2953034337 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Runping Qi, Nevin L. Zhang, David Poole

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInfluence diagramComputationDiagramRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceDecision problemBayesian probabilityMathematical optimizationDecision treeAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While influence diagrams have many advantages as a representation framework for Bayesian decision problems, they have a serious drawback in handling asymmetric decision problems. To be represented in an influence diagram, an asymmetric decision problem must be symmetrized. A considerable amount of unnecessary computation may be involved when a symmetrized influence diagram is evaluated by conventional algorithms. In this paper we present an approach for avoiding such unnecessary computation in influence diagram evaluation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207