MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964760189

Epsilon-BMC: A Bayesian Ensemble Approach to Epsilon-Greedy Exploration in Model-Free Reinforcement Learning

2020· article· en· W2964760189 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gimelfarb, Scott Sanner, Chi-Guhn Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningBayesian probabilityComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Mathematical optimizationMonotone polygonConvergence (economics)Greedy algorithmSimulated annealingBellman equationQ-learningFunction (biology)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resolving the exploration-exploitation trade-off remains a fundamental problem in the design and implementation of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms. In this paper, we focus on model-free RL using the epsilon-greedy exploration policy, which despite its simplicity, remains one of the most frequently used forms of exploration. However, a key limitation of this policy is the specification of $\varepsilon$. In this paper, we provide a novel Bayesian perspective of $\varepsilon$ as a measure of the uniformity of the Q-value function. We introduce a closed-form Bayesian model update based on Bayesian model combination (BMC), based on this new perspective, which allows us to adapt $\varepsilon$ using experiences from the environment in constant time with monotone convergence guarantees. We demonstrate that our proposed algorithm, $\varepsilon$-\texttt{BMC}, efficiently balances exploration and exploitation on different problems, performing comparably or outperforming the best tuned fixed annealing schedules and an alternative data-dependent $\varepsilon$ adaptation scheme proposed in the literature.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.077 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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