Novelty search for deep reinforcement learning policy network weights by action sequence edit metric distance
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
Reinforcement learning (RL) problems often feature deceptive local optima, and methods that optimize purely for reward often fail to learn strategies for overcoming them [2]. Deep neuroevolution and novelty search have been proposed as effective alternatives to gradient-based methods for learning RL policies directly from pixels. We introduce and evaluate the use of novelty search over agent action sequences by Levenshtein distance as a means for promoting innovation. We also introduce a method for stagnation detection and population regeneration inspired by recent developments in the RL community [5], [1] that is derived from novelty search. Our methods extend a state-of-the-art method for deep neuroevolution using a simple genetic algorithm (GA) designed to efficiently learn deep RL policy network weights [6]. Results provide further evidence that GAs are competitive with gradient-based algorithms for deep RL in the Atari 2600 benchmark. Results also demonstrate that novelty search over agent action sequences can be effectively used as a secondary source of evolutionary selection pressure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it