Computing Probabilistic Bisimilarity Distances for Probabilistic Automata
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probabilistic bisimilarity distance of Deng et al. has been proposed as a robust quantitative generalization of Segala and Lynch’s probabilistic bisimilarity for probabilistic automata. In this paper, we present a novel characterization of the bisimilarity distance as the solution of a simple stochastic game. The characterization gives us an algorithm to compute the distances by applying Condon’s simple policy iteration on these games. The correctness of Condon’s approach, however, relies on the assumption that the games are stopping. Our games may be non-stopping in general, yet we are able to prove termination for this extended class of games. Already other algorithms have been proposed in the literature to compute these distances, with complexity in UP cap coUP and PPAD. Despite the theoretical relevance, these algorithms are inefficient in practice. To the best of our knowledge, our algorithm is the first practical solution. In the proofs of all the above-mentioned results, an alternative presentation of the Hausdorff distance due to Mémoli plays a central rôle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it