MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232305727 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9700

Tighter Value Function Bounds for Bayesian Reinforcement Learning

2015· article· en· W2232305727 on OpenAlexaff
Kanghoon Lee, 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 learningBayesian probabilityComputer scienceHeuristicBellman equationBayes' theoremFunction (biology)Perspective (graphical)Value (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematical optimizationFocus (optics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian reinforcement learning (BRL) provides a principled framework for optimal exploration-exploitation tradeoff in reinforcement learning. We focus on model based BRL, which involves a compact formulation of the optimal tradeoff from the Bayesian perspective. However, it still remains a computational challenge to compute the Bayes-optimal policy. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to compute tighter value function bounds of the Bayes-optimal value function, which is crucial for improving the performance of many model-based BRL algorithms. We then present how our bounds can be integrated into real-time AO* heuristic search, and provide a theoretical analysis on the impact of improved bounds on the search efficiency. We also provide empirical results on standard BRL domains that demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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