MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375923538 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9747

Representation Discovery for MDPs Using Bisimulation Metrics

2015· article· en· W4375923538 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry Ruan, Gheorghe Comanici, Prakash Panangaden, Doina Precup

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBisimulationMetric (unit)Computer scienceRepresentation (politics)ComputationConvergence (economics)Sequence (biology)Markov decision processTheoretical computer scienceState spaceMetric spaceState (computer science)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationMarkov processMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a novel, flexible, iterative refinement algorithm to automatically construct an approximate statespace representation for Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Our approach leverages bisimulation metrics, which have been used in prior work to generate features to represent the state space of MDPs.We address a drawback of this approach, which is the expensive computation of the bisimulation metrics. We propose an algorithm to generate an iteratively improving sequence of state space partitions. Partial metric computations guide the representation search and provide much lower space and computational complexity, while maintaining strong convergence properties. We provide theoretical results guaranteeing convergence as well as experimental illustrations of the accuracy and savings (in time and memory usage) of the new algorithm, compared to traditional bisimulation metric computation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.055 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207