MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W85998123 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v19i1.13355

Incremental Policy Generation for Finite-Horizon DEC-POMDPs

2009· article· en· W85998123 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Amato, Jilles Dibangoye, Shlomo Zilberstein

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDynamic programmingComputer scienceScalabilityReachabilityMathematical optimizationState (computer science)State spaceReduction (mathematics)BackupHorizonAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solving multiagent planning problems modeled as DEC-POMDPs is an important challenge. These models are often solved by using dynamic programming, but the high resource usage of current approaches results in limited scalability. To improve the efficiency of dynamic programming algorithms, we propose a new backup algorithm that is based on a reachability analysis of the state space. This method, which we call incremental policy generation, can be used to produce an optimal solution for any possible initial state or further scalability can be achieved by making use of a known start state. When incorporated into the optimal dynamic programming algorithm, our experiments show that planning horizon can be increased due to a marked reduction in resource consumption. This approach also fits nicely with approximate dynamic programming algorithms. To demonstrate this, we incorporate it into the state-of-the-art PBIP algorithm and show significant performance gains. The results suggest that the performance of other dynamic programming algorithms for DEC-POMDPs could be similarly improved by integrating the incremental policy generation approach.

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)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
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

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207