MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382653405 · doi:10.1002/9781119873747.ch2

Markov Decision Process and Reinforcement Learning

2023· other· en· W4382653405 on OpenAlex
Dinh Thai Hoang, Nguyễn Văn Huynh, Diep N. Nguyen, Ekram Hossain, Dusit Niyato

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

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov decision processReinforcement learningComputer scienceQ-learningMarkov processKey (lock)Partially observable Markov decision processProcess (computing)Mathematical optimizationMarkov chainBellman equationExtension (predicate logic)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceMarkov modelMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter first provides the fundamental background and theory of the Markov decision process (MDP), a critical mathematical framework for modeling decision-making in situations where outcomes are partially random and partially under the control of a decision-maker. Specifically, key components of an MDP and several typical extension models are presented. After that, common solutions to address MDP problems such as linear programming, value iteration, policy iteration, and reinforcement learning, are reviewed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207