MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1683981004 · doi:10.1109/acc.2015.7172192

Reinforcement learning in decentralized stochastic control systems with partial history sharing

2015· article· en· W1683981004 on OpenAlexaff
Jalal Arabneydi, Aditya Mahajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceReinforcementControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we are interested in systems with multiple agents that wish to collaborate in order to accomplish a common task while a) agents have different information (decentralized information) and b) agents do not know the model of the system completely i.e., they may know the model partially or may not know it at all. The agents must learn the optimal strategies by interacting with their environment i.e., by decentralized Reinforcement Learning (RL). The presence of multiple agents with different information makes decentralized reinforcement learning conceptually more difficult than centralized reinforcement learning. In this paper, we develop a decentralized reinforcement learning algorithm that learns ε-team-optimal solution for partial history sharing information structure, which encompasses a large class of decentralized control systems including delayed sharing, control sharing, mean field sharing, etc. Our approach consists of two main steps. In the first step, we convert the decentralized control system to an equivalent centralized POMDP (Partially Observable Markov Decision Process) using an existing approach called common information approach. However, the resultant POMDP requires the complete knowledge of system model. To circumvent this requirement, in the second step, we introduce a new concept called “Incrementally Expanding Representation” using which we construct a finite-state RL algorithm whose approximation error converges to zero exponentially fast. We illustrate the proposed approach and verify it numerically by obtaining a decentralized Q-learning algorithm for two-user Multi Access Broadcast Channel (MABC) which is a benchmark example for decentralized control systems.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 studies0.0010.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207