MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912943342

Improving generalization in reinforcement learning on Atari 2600 games

2019· article· en· W2912943342 on OpenAlexaff
Abhi Savaliya, Chirag Ahuja, Chirayu Shah, Sagar V. Parikh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of advance research, ideas and innovations in technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHyperparameterMachine learningRegularization (linguistics)OverfittingDeep learningTransfer of learningArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) is poised to revolutionize the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and represents a crucial step towards building autonomous systems with a higher-level understanding of the world around them. In particular, deep reinforcement learning has changed the landscape of autonomous agents by achieving superhuman performance on board game Go, a significant milestone in AI research. In this project, we attempt to train a Deep RL network on Demon Attack – an Atari 2600 game and test the model on different game environments to investigate the feasibility of applying Transfer Learning on environments with same action space but slightly different state space. We further extend the project to use established Reinforcement Learning techniques such as DQN, Dueling DQN, and SARSA to examine whether RL agents can be generalized on unfamiliar environments by fine-tuning the hyperparameters. Finally, we borrow classic regularization techniques like 2 regularization and dropout from the world of supervised learning and probe whether these techniques which have received very limited attention in the domain of reinforcement learning are effective in reducing overfitting of Deep RL networks. Deep Networks are expensive to train and complex models take weeks to train using expensive GPUs. We find that the use of the above techniques prevents the network from overfitting on the current environment and gives satisfactory results when tested on slightly different environments thus enabling substantial savings in training time & resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of advance research, ideas and innovations in technologySame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207