MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2864378606 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2018/740

Emergent Tangled Program Graphs in Multi-Task Learning

2018· article· en· W2864378606 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Kelly, Malcolm I. Heywood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceTask (project management)Modularity (biology)Representation (politics)Simple (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Genetic programmingControl (management)Task analysisHuman–computer interactionMachine learningDistributed computingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a Genetic Programming (GP) framework to address high-dimensional Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning (MTRL) through emergent modularity. A bottom-up process is assumed in which multiple programs self-organize into collective decision-making entities, or teams, which then further develop into multi-team policy graphs, or Tangled Program Graphs (TPG). The framework learns to play three Atari video games simultaneously, producing a single control policy that matches or exceeds leading results from (game-specific) deep reinforcement learning in each game. More importantly, unlike the representation assumed for deep learning, TPG policies start simple and adaptively complexify through interaction with the task environment, resulting in agents that are exceedingly simple, operating in real-time without specialized hardware support such as GPUs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207