MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1178556121 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9613

Policy Tree: Adaptive Representation for Policy Gradient

2015· article· en· W1178556121 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftmax functionRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceTree (set theory)Decision treeReinforcement learningTree structureMathematical optimizationFocus (optics)Base (topology)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsAlgorithmPolitical scienceBinary treeLawArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the focus on finding good representations in reinforcement learning has been on learning complex non-linear predictors of value. Policy gradient algorithms, which directly represent the policy, often need fewer parameters to learn good policies. However, they typically employ a fixed parametric representation that may not be sufficient for complex domains. This paper introduces the Policy Tree algorithm, which can learn an adaptive representation of policy in the form of a decision tree over different instantiations of a base policy. Policy gradient is used both to optimize the parameters and to grow the tree by choosing splits that enable the maximum local increase in the expected return of the policy. Experiments show that this algorithm can choose genuinely helpful splits and significantly improve upon the commonly used linear Gibbs softmax policy, which we choose as our base policy.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.179 · 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