MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794958591 · doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8594242

Accelerating Learning in Constructive Predictive Frameworks with the Successor Representation

2018· preprint· en· W2794958591 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Sherstan, Marlos C. Machado, Patrick M. Pilarski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConstructiveSuccessor cardinalReinforcement learningInterdependenceRepresentation (politics)Machine learningProcess (computing)Task (project management)RobotGridField (mathematics)RoboticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose using the Successor Representation (SR) to accelerate learning in a constructive knowledge system based on General Value Functions (GVFs). In real-world settings, like robotics for unstructured and dynamic environments, it is impossible to model all meaningful aspects of a system and its environment by hand. Instead, robots must learn and adapt to changes in their environment and task, incrementally constructing models from their own experience. GVFs, taken from the field of reinforcement learning (RL), are a way of modeling the world as predictive questions. One approach to such models proposes a massive network of interconnected and interdependent GVFs, which are incrementally added over time. It is reasonable to expect that new, incrementally added predictions can be learned more swiftly if the learning process leverages knowledge gained from past experience. The SR provides a means of capturing regularities that can be reused across multiple GVFs by separating the dynamics of the world from the prediction targets. As a primary contribution of this work, we show that using the SR can improve sample efficiency and learning speed of GVFs in a continual learning setting where new predictions are incrementally added and learned over time. We analyze our approach in a grid-world and then demonstrate its potential on data from a physical robot arm.

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)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207