Combining Expert Neural Networks Using Reinforcement Feedback for Learning Primitive Grasping Behavior
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
This paper present an architecture for combining a mixture of experts. The architecture has two unique features: 1) it assumes no prior knowledge of the size or structure of the mixture and allows the number of experts to dynamically expand during training, and 2) reinforcement feedback is used to guide the combining/expansion operation. The architecture is particularly suitable for applications when there is a need to approximate a many-to-many mapping. An example of such a problem is the task of training a robot to grasp arbitrarily shaped objects. This task requires the approximation of a many-to-many mapping, since various configurations can be used to grasp an object, and several objects can share the same grasping configuration. Experiments in a simulated environment using a 28-object database showed how the algorithm dynamically combined and expanded a mixture of neural networks to achieve the learning task. The paper also presents a comparison with two other nonlearning approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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