Approximate Value Iteration with Temporally Extended Actions (Extended Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The options framework provides a concrete way to implement and reason about temporally extended actions. Existing literature has demonstrated the value of planning with options empirically, but there is a lack of theoretical analysis formalizing when planning with options is more efficient than planning with primitive actions. We provide a general analysis of the convergence rate of a popular Approximate Value Iteration (AVI) algorithm called Fitted Value Iteration (FVI) with options. Our analysis reveals that longer duration options and a pessimistic estimate of the value function both lead to faster convergence. Furthermore, options can improve convergence even when they are suboptimal and sparsely distributed throughout the state space. Next we consider generating useful options for planning based on a subset of landmark states. This suggests a new algorithm, Landmark-based AVI (LAVI), that represents the value function only at landmark states. We analyze OFVI and LAVI using the proposed landmark-based options and compare the two algorithms. Our theoretical and experimental results demonstrate that options can play an important role in AVI by decreasing approximation error and inducing fast convergence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".