MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925234320 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.09762

TTR-Based Reward for Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Model Priors

2019· preprint· en· W2925234320 on OpenAlexaff
Xubo Lyu, Mo Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceKey (lock)Function (biology)InefficiencyArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)ExploitTemporal difference learningState (computer science)Machine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.133 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207