MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995725691 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.09451

An Iterative Riccati Algorithm for Online Linear Quadratic Control

2019· preprint· en· W2995725691 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretSublinear functionLinear-quadratic regulatorLogarithmMathematicsMathematical optimizationHindsight biasController (irrigation)Linear-quadratic-Gaussian controlOptimal controlLinear systemRiccati equationSmoothingSequence (biology)Computer scienceDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An online policy learning problem of linear control systems is studied. In this problem, the control system is known and linear, and a sequence of quadratic cost functions is revealed to the controller in hindsight, and the controller updates its policy to achieve a sublinear regret, similar to online optimization. A modified online Riccati algorithm is introduced that under some boundedness assumption leads to logarithmic regret bound. In particular, the logarithmic regret for the scalar case is achieved without boundedness assumption. Our algorithm, while achieving a better regret bound, also has reduced complexity compared to earlier algorithms which rely on solving semi-definite programs at each stage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.124 · 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