MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997123841 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5885

Monte-Carlo Tree Search in Continuous Action Spaces with Value Gradients

2020· article· en· W2997123841 on OpenAlexaff
Jongmin Lee, Wonseok Jeon, Geon-Hyeong Kim, Kee-Eung Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaIran Telecommunication Research CenterNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMonte Carlo tree searchDiscretizationSmoothnessAction (physics)Tree (set theory)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodSet (abstract data type)Space (punctuation)MathematicsDiscrete spaceExploitAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is the state-of-the-art online planning algorithm for large problems with discrete action spaces. However, many real-world problems involve continuous action spaces, where MCTS is not as effective as in discrete action spaces. This is mainly due to common practices such as coarse discretization of the entire action space and failure to exploit local smoothness. In this paper, we introduce Value-Gradient UCT (VG-UCT), which combines traditional MCTS with gradient-based optimization of action particles. VG-UCT simultaneously performs a global search via UCT with respect to the finitely sampled set of actions and performs a local improvement via action value gradients. In the experiments, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing MCTS methods and other strong baseline algorithms for continuous action spaces.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207