MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970634945

Maximum Entropy Monte-Carlo Planning

2019· article· en· W2970634945 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

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftmax functionComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodPrinciple of maximum entropyEntropy (arrow of time)Convergence (economics)Monte Carlo tree searchRate of convergenceMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a new algorithm for online planning in large scale sequential decision problems that improves upon the worst case efficiency of UCT. The idea is to augment Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with maximum entropy policy optimization, evaluating each search node by softmax values back-propagated from simulation. To establish the effectiveness of this approach, we first investigate the single-step decision problem, stochastic softmax bandits, and show that softmax values can be estimated at an optimal convergence rate in terms of mean squared error. We then extend this approach to general sequential decision making by developing a general MCTS algorithm, Maximum Entropy for Tree Search (MENTS). We prove that the probability of MENTS failing to identify the best decision at the root decays exponentially, which fundamentally improves the polynomial convergence rate of UCT. Our experimental results also demonstrate that MENTS is more sample efficient than UCT in both synthetic problems and Atari 2600 games.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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