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
PAC-MDP algorithms are particularly efficient in terms of the number of samples obtained from the environment which are needed by the learning agents in order to achieve a near optimal performance. These algorithms however execute a time consuming planning step after each new state-action pair becomes known to the agent, that is, the pair has been sampled sufficiently many times to be considered as known by the algorithm. This fact is a serious limitation on broader applications of these kind of algorithms.This paper examines the planning problem in PAC-MDP learning. Value iteration, prioritized sweeping, and backward value iteration are investigated. Through the exploitation of the specific nature of the planning problem in the considered reinforcement learning algorithms, we show how these planning algorithms can be improved. Our extensions yield significant improvements in all evaluated algorithms, and standard value iteration in particular. The theoretical justification to all contributions is provided and all approaches are further evaluated empirically. With our extensions, we managed to solve problems of sizes which have never been approached by PAC-MDP learning in the existing literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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