MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575899338 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10911

Policy Search with High-Dimensional Context Variables

2017· article· en· W2575899338 on OpenAlexaff
Voot Tangkaratt, Herke van Hoof, Simone Parisi, Gerhard Neumann, Jan Peters, Masashi Sugiyama

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsDimensionality reductionPrincipal component analysisComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceCurse of dimensionalityContext (archaeology)Entropy (arrow of time)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct contextual policy search methods learn to improve policy parameters and simultaneously generalize these parameters to different context or task variables. However, learning from high-dimensional context variables, such as camera images, is still a prominent problem in many real-world tasks. A naive application of unsupervised dimensionality reduction methods to the context variables, such as principal component analysis, is insufficient as task-relevant input may be ignored. In this paper, we propose a contextual policy search method in the model-based relative entropy stochastic search framework with integrated dimensionality reduction. We learn a model of the reward that is locally quadratic in both the policy parameters and the context variables. Furthermore, we perform supervised linear dimensionality reduction on the context variables by nuclear norm regularization. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms naive dimensionality reduction via principal component analysis and a state-of-the-art contextual policy search method.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207