MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011813374 · doi:10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029898

Approximate information state for partially observed systems

2019· article· en· W3011813374 on OpenAlexaff
Jayakumar Subramanian, Aditya Mahajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservableComputer scienceState (computer science)Reinforcement learningPartially observable Markov decision processMarkov decision processBenchmark (surveying)Markov processMathematical optimizationConstructiveArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMarkov chainMarkov modelMachine learningMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207