MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157864803

Action-Gap Phenomenon in Reinforcement Learning

2011· article· en· W2157864803 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningAction (physics)PhenomenonBounded functionQ-learningBellman equationFunction (biology)Value (mathematics)MathematicsReinforcementComputer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematical analysisPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many practitioners of reinforcement learning problems have observed that oftentimes the performance of the agent reaches very close to the optimal performance even though the estimated (action-)value function is still far from the optimal one. The goal of this paper is to explain and formalize this phenomenon by introducing the concept of the action-gap regularity. As a typical result, we prove that for an agent following the greedy policy ˆπ with respect to an action-value function ˆ Q, the performance loss E [ V ∗ (X) − V ˆπ (X) ] is upper bounded by O( ‖ ˆ Q − Q ∗ ‖ 1+ζ in which ζ ≥ 0 is the parameter quantifying the action-gap regularity. For ζ> 0, our results indicate smaller performance loss compared to what previous analyses had suggested. Finally, we show how this regularity affects the performance of the family of approximate value iteration algorithms. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it