MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387185322 · doi:10.3233/faia230293

Cache-Efficient Dynamic Programming MDP Solver

2023· book-chapter· en· W4387185322 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaël Champagne Gareau, G. Gosset, Éric Beaudry, Vladimir Makarenkov

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCacheMemory hierarchySolverParallel computingHierarchyState (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)Dynamic programmingCache algorithmsCache-oblivious algorithmComponent (thermodynamics)CPU cacheDistributed computingAlgorithmProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated planning research often focuses on developing new algorithms to improve the computational performance of planners, but effective implementation can also play a significant role. Hardware features such as memory hierarchy can yield substantial running time improvements when optimized. In this paper, we propose two state-reordering techniques for the Topological Value Iteration (TVI) algorithm. Our first technique organizes states in memory so that those belonging to the same Strongly Connected Component (SCC) are contiguous, while our second technique optimizes state value propagation by reordering states within each SCC. We analyze existing planning algorithms with respect to their cache efficiency and describe domain characteristics which can provide an advantage to each of them. Empirical results show that, in many instances, our new algorithms, called eTVI and eiTVI, run several times faster than traditional VI, TVI, LRTDP and ILAO* techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207