Applying expectation-maximization evaluation on approximate optimal control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we proposed an approach of approximating optimal tracking via expectation-maximization (EM) evaluation. From the discussion of applying reinforcement learning (RL) for a system with unknown internal dynamics, we present the challenge of using a classical frame of Q-learning on a tracking task. Further we explained the idea of redefining the cost function (i.e. criterion) of Q-learning to satisfy the requirement for the system dynamic knowledge for the tracking task. We explained the advantages of dividing the original trajectory tracking task into two machine learning subtasks (i.e. learning the quadratic regulator and learning the baseline command generator) on-line. Details are given on the integration of the Q-learning frame and EM algorithm as well as the convergence to the optimum control via iterative estimation of an optimal regulator and a baseline generator. Initial simulation results of this approach using a second order system showed the ability of the Q-learning frame integrated with the EM algorithm approximates to the optimal tracking task.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it