MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946704039 · doi:10.65109/xthn2283

Meta-learning for Predictive Knowledge Architectures: A Case Study Using TIDBD on a Sensor-rich Robotic Arm

2019· article· en· W2946704039 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Günther, Alex Kearney, Nadia M. Ady, Michael R. Dawson, Patrick M. Pilarski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningRepresentation (politics)Meta learning (computer science)RoboticsKey (lock)Temporal difference learningFeature learningRobotReinforcement learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive approaches to modelling the environment have seen recent successes in robotics and other long-lived applications. These predictive knowledge architectures are learned incrementally and online, through interaction with the environment. One challenge for applications of predictive knowledge is the necessity of tuning feature representations and parameter values: no single step size will be appropriate for every prediction. Furthermore, as sensor signals might be subject to change in a non-stationary world, predefined step sizes cannot be sufficient for an autonomous agent. In this paper, we explore Temporal-Difference Incremental Delta-Bar-Delta (TIDBD)-a meta-learning method for temporal-difference (TD) learning which adapts a vector of many step sizes, allowing for simultaneous step size tuning and representation learning. We demonstrate that, for a predictive knowledge application, TIDBD is a viable alternative to tuning step-size parameters, by showing that the performance of TIDBD is comparable to that of TD with an exhaustive parameter search. Performance here is measured in terms of root mean squared difference from the true value, calculated offline. Moreover, TIDBD can perform representation learning, potentially supporting robust learning in the face of failing sensors. The ability for an autonomous agent to adapt its own learning and adjust its representation based on interactions with its environment is a key capability. With its potential to fulfill these desiderata, meta-learning is a promising component for future systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207