Regularized policy iteration with nonparametric function spaces
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
We study two regularization-based approximate policy iteration algorithms, namely REG-LSPI and REG-BRM, to solve reinforcement learning and planning problems in discounted Markov Decision Processes with large state and finite action spaces. The core of these algorithms are the regularized extensions of the Least-Squares Temporal Difference (LSTD) learning and Bellman Residual Minimization (BRM), which are used in the algorithms' policy evaluation steps. Regularization provides a convenient way to control the complexity of the function space to which the estimated value function belongs and as a result enables us to work with rich nonparametric function spaces. We derive efficient implementations of our methods when the function space is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. We analyze the statistical properties of REG-LSPI and provide an upper bound on the policy evaluation error and the performance loss of the policy returned by this method. Our bound shows the dependence of the loss on the number of samples, the capacity of the function space, and some intrinsic properties of the underlying Markov Decision Process. The dependence of the policy evaluation bound on the number of samples is minimax optimal. This is the first work that provides such a strong guarantee for a nonparametric approximate policy iteration algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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