MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025133396 · doi:10.65109/uazl2918

META-Learning State-based Eligibility Traces for More Sample-Efficient Policy Evaluation

2020· preprint· en· W3025133396 on OpenAlexaff
Mingde Zhao, Sitao Luan, Ian Porada, Xiao-Wen Chang, Doina Precup

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceMachine learningRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceTemporal difference learningSample (material)Q-learningBellman equationMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal-Difference (TD) learning is a standard and very successful reinforcement learning approach, at the core of both algorithms that learn the value of a given policy, as well as algorithms which learn how to improve policies. TD-learning with eligibility traces provides a way to boost sample efficiency by temporal credit assignment, i.e. deciding which portion of a reward should be assigned to predecessor states that occurred at different previous times, controlled by a parameter λ. However, tuning this parameter can be time-consuming, and not tuning it can lead to inefficient learning. For better sample efficiency of TD-learning, we propose a meta-learning method for adjusting the eligibility trace parameter, in a state-dependent manner. The adaptation is achieved with the help of auxiliary learners that learn distributional information about the update targets online, incurring roughly the same computational complexity per step as the usual value learner. Our approach can be used both in on-policy and off-policy learning. We prove that, under some assumptions, the proposed method improves the overall quality of the update targets, by minimizing the overall target error. This method can be viewed as a plugin to assist prediction with function approximation by meta-learning feature (observation)-based λ online, or even in the control case to assist policy improvement. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates significant performance improvements, as well as improved robustness of the proposed algorithm to learning rate variation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207