MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739747865 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/290

Constrained Bayesian Reinforcement Learning via Approximate Linear Programming

2017· article· en· W2739747865 on OpenAlexaff
Jongmin Lee, Youngsoo Jang, Pascal Poupart, Kee-Eung Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionDefense Acquisition Program AdministrationKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyAgency for Defense DevelopmentMinistry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityMathematical optimizationMachine learningLinear programmingBayesian optimizationState (computer science)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the safe learning scenario where we need to restrict the exploratory behavior of a reinforcement learning agent. Specifically, we treat the problem as a form of Bayesian reinforcement learning in an environment that is modeled as a constrained MDP (CMDP) where the cost function penalizes undesirable situations. We propose a model-based Bayesian reinforcement learning (BRL) algorithm for such an environment, eliciting risk-sensitive exploration in a principled way. Our algorithm efficiently solves the constrained BRL problem by approximate linear programming, and generates a finite state controller in an off-line manner. We provide theoretical guarantees and demonstrate empirically that our approach outperforms the state of the art.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207