Classification-based Approximate Policy Iteration: Experiments and Extended Discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tackling large approximate dynamic programming or reinforcement learning problems requires methods that can exploit regularities, or intrinsic structure, of the problem in hand. Most current methods are geared towards exploiting the regularities of either the value function or the policy. We introduce a general classification-based approximate policy iteration (CAPI) framework, which encompasses a large class of algorithms that can exploit regularities of both the value function and the policy space, depending on what is advantageous. This framework has two main components: a generic value function estimator and a classifier that learns a policy based on the estimated value function. We establish theoretical guarantees for the sample complexity of CAPI-style algorithms, which allow the policy evaluation step to be performed by a wide variety of algorithms (including temporal-difference-style methods), and can handle nonparametric representations of policies. Our bounds on the estimation error of the performance loss are tighter than existing results. We also illustrate this approach empirically on several problems, including a large HIV control task.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".