MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399728557 · doi:10.1109/tit.2024.3416063

Reinforcement Learning for Near-Optimal Design of Zero-Delay Codes for Markov Sources

2024· article· en· W4399728557 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam Cregg, Tamás Linder, Serdar Yüksel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningMarkov chainZero (linguistics)Computer scienceMarkov processMarkov decision processVariable-order Markov modelMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMarkov modelMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the classical lossy source coding problem, one encodes long blocks of source symbols that enables the distortion to approach the ultimate Shannon limit. Such a block-coding approach introduces large delays, which is undesirable in many delay-sensitive applications. We consider the zero-delay case, where the goal is to encode and decode a finite-alphabet Markov source without any delay. It has been shown that this problem lends itself to stochastic control techniques, which lead to existence, structural, and general structural approximation results. However, these techniques so far have only resulted in computationally prohibitive algorithmic implementations for code design. To address this problem, we present a practically implementable reinforcement learning design algorithm and rigorously prove its asymptotic optimality. In particular, we show that a quantized Q-learning algorithm can be used to obtain a near-optimal coding policy for this problem. The proof builds on recent results on quantized Q-learning for weakly Feller controlled Markov chains whose application necessitates the development of supporting technical results on regularity and stability properties, and relating the optimal solutions for discounted and average cost infinite horizon criteria problems. These theoretical results are supported by simulations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207