Work in Progress: Temporally Extended Auxiliary Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive auxiliary tasks have been shown to improve performance in numerous reinforcement learning works, however, this effect is still not well understood. The primary purpose of the work presented here is to investigate the impact that an auxiliary task's prediction timescale has on the agent's policy performance. We consider auxiliary tasks which learn to make on-policy predictions using temporal difference learning. We test the impact of prediction timescale using a specific form of auxiliary task in which the input image is used as the prediction target, which we refer to as temporal difference autoencoders (TD-AE). We empirically evaluate the effect of TD-AE on the A2C algorithm in the VizDoom environment using different prediction timescales. While we do not observe a clear relationship between the prediction timescale on performance, we make the following observations: 1) using auxiliary tasks allows us to reduce the trajectory length of the A2C algorithm, 2) in some cases temporally extended TD-AE performs better than a straight autoencoder, 3) performance with auxiliary tasks is sensitive to the weight placed on the auxiliary loss, 4) despite this sensitivity, auxiliary tasks improved performance without extensive hyper-parameter tuning. Our overall conclusions are that TD-AE increases the robustness of the A2C algorithm to the trajectory length and while promising, further study is required to fully understand the relationship between auxiliary task prediction timescale and the agent's performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".