Active exploratory q-learning for large problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although reinforcement learning (RL) emerged more than a decade ago, it is still under extensive investigation in application to large problems, where the states and actions are multi-dimensional and continuous and result in the so- called curse of dimensionality. Conventional RL methods are still not efficient enough in huge state-action spaces, while value-function generalization-based approaches require a very large number of good training examples. This paper presents an active exploratory approach to address the challenge of RL in large problems. The core principle of this approach is that the agent does not rush to the next state. Instead, it attempts a number of actions at the current state first, and then selects the action that returns the greatest immediate reward. The state resulting from performing the action is considered as the next state. Four active exploration algorithms for good actions are proposed: random-based search, opposition-based random search, search by cyclical adjustment, and opposition-based cyclical adjustment of each action dimension. The efficiency of these algorithms is determined by a visual-servoing experiment with a 6-axis robot.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".