MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963462732

Planning by Prioritized Sweeping with Small Backups

2013· article· en· W2963462732 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Machine Learning · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackupSuccessor cardinalComputer scienceReinforcement learningFlexibility (engineering)ComputationImplementationProcess (computing)Distributed computingState (computer science)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient planning plays a crucial role in model-based reinforcement learning. Traditionally, the main planning operation is a full backup based on the current estimates of the successor states. Consequently, its computation time is proportional to the number of successor states. In this paper, we introduce a new planning backup that uses only the current value of a single successor state and has a computation time independent of the number of successor states. This new backup, which we call a small backup, opens the door to a new class of model-based reinforcement learning methods that exhibit much finer control over their planning process than traditional methods. We empirically demonstrate that this increased flexibility allows for more efficient planning by showing that an implementation of prioritized sweeping based on small backups achieves a substantial performance improvement over classical implementations.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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