Algorithm-Directed Exploration for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning in Factored MDPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the central challenges in reinforcement learning is to balance the exploration/exploitation tradeoff while scaling up to large problems. Although model-based reinforcement learning has been less prominent than value-based methods in addressing these challenges, recent progress has generated renewed interest in pursuing modelbased approaches: Theoretical work on the exploration /exploitation tradeoff has yielded provably sound model-based algorithms such as E Rmax , while work on factored MDP representations has yielded model-based algorithms that can scale up to large problems. Recently the benefits of both achievements have been combined in the algorithm of Kearns and Koller. In this paper, we address a significant shortcoming of Factored E : namely that it requires an oracle planner that cannot be feasibly implemented. We propose an alternative approach that uses a practical approximate planner, approximate linear programming, that maintains desirable properties. Further, we develop an exploration strategy that is targeted toward improving the performance of the linear programming algorithm, rather than an oracle planner. This leads to a simple exploration strategy that visits states relevant to tightening the LP solution, and achieves sample efficiency logarithmic in the size of the problem description. Our experimental results show that the targeted approach performs better than using approximate planning for implementing either Factored E or Factored Rmax .
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".