Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we present a unified, general approach to variance reduction in agent evaluation using machine learning to minimize variance. Evaluating an agent's performance in a stochastic setting is necessary for agent development, scientific evaluation, and competitions. Traditionally, evaluation is done using Monte Carlo estimation (sample averages); the magnitude of the stochasticity in the domain or the high cost of sampling, however, can often prevent the approach from resulting in statistically significant conclusions. Recently, an advantage sum technique based on control variates has been proposed for constructing unbiased, low variance estimates of agent performance. The technique requires an expert to define a value function over states of the system, essentially a guess of the state's unknown value. In this work, we propose learning this value function from past interactions between agents in some target population. Our learned value functions have two key advantages: they can be applied in domains where no expert value function is available and they can result in tuned evaluation for a specific population of agents (e.g., novice versus advanced agents). This work has three main contributions. First, we consolidate previous work in using control variates for variance reduction into one unified, general framework and summarize the connections between this previous work. Second, our framework makes variance reduction practically possible in any sequential decision making task where designing the expert value function is time-consuming, difficult or essentially impossible. We prove the optimality of our approach and extend the theoretical understanding of advantage sum estimators. In addition, we significantly extend the applicability of advantage sum estimators and discuss practical methods for using our framework in real-world scenarios. Finally, we provide low-variance estimators for three poker domains previously without variance reduction and improve strategy selection in the expert-level University of Alberta poker bot.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".