TTR-Based Reward for Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Model Priors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-free reinforcement learning (RL) is a powerful approach for learning control policies directly from high-dimensional state and observation. However, it tends to be data-inefficient, which is especially costly in robotic learning tasks. On the other hand, optimal control does not require data if the system model is known, but cannot scale to models with high-dimensional states and observations. To exploit benefits of both model-free RL and optimal control, we propose time-to-reach-based (TTR-based) reward shaping, an optimal control-inspired technique to alleviate data inefficiency while retaining advantages of model-free RL. This is achieved by summarizing key system model information using a TTR function to greatly speed up the RL process, as shown in our simulation results. The TTR function is defined as the minimum time required to move from any state to the goal under assumed system dynamics constraints. Since the TTR function is computationally intractable for systems with high-dimensional states, we compute it for approximate, lower-dimensional system models that still captures key dynamic behaviors. Our approach can be flexibly and easily incorporated into any model-free RL algorithm without altering the original algorithm structure, and is compatible with any other techniques that may facilitate the RL process. We evaluate our approach on two representative robotic learning tasks and three well-known model-free RL algorithms, and show significant improvements in data efficiency and performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".