Learning Submodular Objectives for Team Environmental Monitoring
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
In this paper, we study the well-known team orienteering problem where a fleet of robots collects rewards by visiting locations. Usually, the rewards are assumed to be known to the robots; however, in applications such as environmental monitoring or scene reconstruction, the rewards are often subjective and specifying them is challenging. We propose a framework to learn the unknown preferences of the user by presenting alternative solutions to them, and the user provides a ranking on the proposed alternative solutions. We consider the two cases for the user: 1) a deterministic user which provides the optimal ranking for the alternative solutions, and 2) a noisy user which provides the optimal ranking according to an unknown probability distribution. For the deterministic user we propose a framework to minimize a bound on the maximum deviation from the optimal solution, namely regret. We adapt the approach to capture the noisy user and minimize the expected regret. Finally, we demonstrate the importance of learning user preferences and the performance of the proposed methods in an extensive set of experimental results using real world datasets for environmental monitoring problems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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