Mixing Habits and Planning for Multi-Step Target Reaching Using Arbitrated Predictive Actor-Critic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internal models are important when agents make decisions based on predictions of future states and their utilities. However, using internal models for planning can be time consuming. Therefore, it can be useful to use a habitual system for repetitive tasks that can be executed faster and with reduced algorithmic resources. Current evidence suggests that the brain uses both control systems, planning and habitual systems for behavioural control, which then requires an arbitration between these two systems. In our previous work [1], we proposed an Arbitrated Predictive Actor-Critic (APAC), which is a neural architecture demonstrating cooperative mechanisms of planning and habitual control systems for one step mapping. The present study tests the ability of such a model to control a simulated two-joints robotic arm during multiple reaching tasks with movement limitations that require multiple steps to solve the task. Our results show that APAC can learn the multi-step learning under various conditions. Interestingly, the APAC tends to shift from planning to habits by taking actions predicted by a habitual controller over the training time.
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 | 0.000 | 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".