Interval Estimation for Reinforcement-Learning Algorithms in Continuous-State Domains
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reinforcement learning community has explored many approaches to obtaining value estimates and models to guide decision making; these approaches, however, do not usually provide a measure of confidence in the estimate. Accurate estimates of an agent’s confidence are useful for many applications, such as biasing exploration and automatically adjusting parameters to reduce dependence on parameter-tuning. Computing confidence intervals on reinforcement learning value estimates, however, is challenging because data generated by the agentenvironment interaction rarely satisfies traditional assumptions. Samples of valueestimates are dependent, likely non-normally distributed and often limited, particularly in early learning when confidence estimates are pivotal. In this work, we investigate how to compute robust confidences for value estimates in continuous Markov decision processes. We illustrate how to use bootstrapping to compute confidence intervals online under a changing policy (previously not possible) and prove validity under a few reasonable assumptions. We demonstrate the applicability of our confidence estimation algorithms with experiments on exploration, parameter estimation and tracking. 1
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it