MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382866902 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27241

Safe MDP Planning by Learning Temporal Patterns of Undesirable Trajectories and Averting Negative Side Effects

2023· article· en· W4382866902 on OpenAlexaff
Siow Meng Low, Akshat Kumar, Scott Sanner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Foundation SingaporeNational Research Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityLagrange multiplierReinforcement learningComputationCategorical variableFidelityMarkov processFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationAction (physics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In safe MDP planning, a cost function based on the current state and action is often used to specify safety aspects. In real world, often the state representation used may lack sufficient fidelity to specify such safety constraints. Operating based on an incomplete model can often produce unintended negative side effects (NSEs). To address these challenges, first, we associate safety signals with state-action trajectories (rather than just immediate state-action). This makes our safety model highly general. We also assume categorical safety labels are given for different trajectories, rather than a numerical cost function, which is harder to specify by the problem designer. We then employ a supervised learning model to learn such non-Markovian safety patterns. Second, we develop a Lagrange multiplier method, which incorporates the safety model and the underlying MDP model in a single computation graph to facilitate agent learning of safe behaviors. Finally, our empirical results on a variety of discrete and continuous domains show that this approach can satisfy complex non-Markovian safety constraints while optimizing agent's total returns, is highly scalable, and is also better than previous best approach for Markovian NSEs.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207