Novel Solution Methods for CPOMDPs With Applications to Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) is a modeling framework that allow decision makers to make decisions in uncertain environments. This framework is particularly suited for sequential decision making problems for which the uncertainties are revealed in stages. Constrained POMDPs (CPOMDPs) extend this framework by also accounting for various restrictions in the environment. This PhD thesis focuses on POMDPs, CPOMDPs and its extensions, proposes novel solution methods and studies applications of POMDPs in disease screening. First, we focus on developing efficient versions of the well-known algorithms for POMDPs. POMDPs are notoriously difficult to solve optimally, and exact solution algorithms typically fail to solve the instances with more than a few core states. In this regard, we consider scalable algorithms solve the POMDP problems. Specifically, we propose distributed and parallel versions of the exact solution methods such as Monahan's algorithm and the incremental pruning algorithm as well as the heuristics such as Lovejoy's upper bound and lower bound methods. Next, we study the CPOMDPs and propose linear programming-based solution methods as a flexible approach for those. We perform a detailed numerical study with five different problem instances to showcase the viability of the proposed solution approach for CPOMDPs. Lastly, we propose multi-objective CPOMDP models for the breast cancer screening problem. These CPOMDP models extend the previously proposed POMDP models for breast cancer screening by considering different screening modalities and simultaneously optimizing for expected total quality-adjusted life years maximization and life-time risk minimization objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".