MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124164408 · doi:10.65109/ycuv1950

Policy optimization by marginal-map probabilistic inference in generative models

2014· article· W7124164408 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Kiselev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processInferenceBenchmark (surveying)Bounded functionGenerative modelProbabilistic logicBayesian inferenceScalability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While most current planning methods have focused on the development of scalable approximate algorithms, they often neglect the important aspect of providing algorithmic performance guarantees, or their tightness is sacrificed to improve efficiency. In contrast, we address a challenging problem of solving POMDP planning problems approximately with a focus on solution quality to estimate the quality of such approximations and to decide when a satisfactory plan is available. 1) We demonstrate that the original task of optimizing POMDP controllers can be approached by its reformulation as the equivalent problem of marginal-MAP inference in a novel single-DBN generative model, which guarantees that the control policies computed by probabilistic inference over this model are optimal in the traditional sense. 2) We further solve a POMDP problem approximately with bounded performance guarantees by translating a corresponding marginal-MAP inference problem into its variational form, and developing two Bayesian variational inference algorithms to (i) approximate the marginal-MAP inference, and (ii) compute the upper bound of the solution. 3) The proposed approach to optimizing parameters of POMDP controllers by marginal-MAP inference with bounded performance guarantees is evaluated on several POMDP benchmark problems and the performance of the implemented variational algorithms is compared to previously developed methods.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207