Universal Option Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of learning models of options for real-time abstract plan-ning, in the setting where reward functions can be specified at any time and their expected returns must be efficiently computed. We introduce a new model for an option that is independent of any reward function, called the universal option model (UOM). We prove that the UOM of an option can construct a traditional option model given a reward function, and also supports efficient computation of the option-conditional return. We extend the UOM to linear function approxi-mation, and we show the UOM gives the TD solution of option returns and the value function of a policy over options. We provide a stochastic approximation algorithm for incrementally learning UOMs from data and prove its consistency. We demonstrate our method in two domains. The first domain is a real-time strat-egy game, where the controller must select the best game unit to accomplish a dynamically-specified task. The second domain is article recommendation, where each user query defines a new reward function and an article’s relevance is the ex-pected return from following a policy that follows the citations between articles. Our experiments show that UOMs are substantially more efficient than previously known methods for evaluating option returns and policies over options. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".