Learning to Predict Consequences as a Method of Knowledge Transfer in Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm allows agents to solve tasks through trial-and-error learning. To be capable of efficient, long-term learning, RL agents should be able to apply knowledge gained in the past to new tasks they may encounter in the future. The ability to predict actions' consequences may facilitate such knowledge transfer. We consider here domains where an RL agent has access to two kinds of information: agent-centric information with constant semantics across tasks, and environment-centric information, which is necessary to solve the task, but with semantics that differ between tasks. For example, in robot navigation, environment-centric information may include the robot's geographic location, while agent-centric information may include sensor readings of various nearby obstacles. We propose that these situations provide an opportunity for a very natural style of knowledge transfer, in which the agent learns to predict actions' environmental consequences using agent-centric information. These predictions contain important information about the affordances and dangers present in a novel environment, and can effectively transfer knowledge from agent-centric to environment-centric learning systems. Using several example problems including spatial navigation and network routing, we show that our knowledge transfer approach can allow faster and lower cost learning than existing alternatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".