MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198357760 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9702

Reward Shaping for Model-Based Bayesian Reinforcement Learning

2015· article· en· W2198357760 on OpenAlexaff
Hyeoneun Kim, Woosang Lim, Kanghoon Lee, Yung‐Kyun Noh, Kee-Eung Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionDefense Acquisition Program AdministrationAgency for Defense DevelopmentNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research Foundation
KeywordsReinforcement learningBenchmark (surveying)Machine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHeuristicBayesian probabilityFunction (biology)Bayes' theoremDomain (mathematical analysis)Bayesian inferenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian reinforcement learning (BRL) provides a formal framework for optimal exploration-exploitation tradeoff in reinforcement learning. Unfortunately, it is generally intractable to find the Bayes-optimal behavior except for restricted cases. As a consequence, many BRL algorithms, model-based approaches in particular, rely on approximated models or real-time search methods. In this paper, we present potential-based shaping for improving the learning performance in model-based BRL. We propose a number of potential functions that are particularly well suited for BRL, and are domain-independent in the sense that they do not require any prior knowledge about the actual environment. By incorporating the potential function into real-time heuristic search, we show that we can significantly improve the learning performance in standard benchmark domains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207