Approximate information state for partially observed systems
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 standard approach for modeling partially observed systems is to model them as partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) and obtain a dynamic program in terms of a belief state. The belief state formulation works well for planning but is not ideal for online reinforcement learning because the belief state depends on the model and, as such, is not observable when the model is unknown.In this paper, we present an alternative notion of an information state for obtaining a dynamic program in partially observed models. In particular, an information state is a sufficient statistic for the current reward which evolves in a controlled Markov manner. We show that such an information state leads to a dynamic programming decomposition. Then we present a notion of an approximate information state and present an approximate dynamic program based on the approximate information state. Approximate information state is defined in terms of properties that can be estimated using sampled trajectories. Therefore, they provide a constructive method for reinforcement learning in partially observed systems. We present one such construction and show that it performs better than the state of the art for three benchmark models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it