Bayesian Experience Reuse for Learning from Multiple Demonstrators
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning from Demonstrations (LfD) is a powerful approach for incorporating advice from experts in the form of demonstrations. However, demonstrations often come from multiple sub-optimal experts with conflicting goals, rendering them difficult to incorporate effectively in online settings. To address this, we formulate a quadratic program whose solution yields an adaptive weighting over experts, that can be used to sample experts with relevant goals. In order to compare different source and target task goals safely, we model their uncertainty using normal-inverse-gamma priors, whose posteriors are learned from demonstrations using Bayesian neural networks with a shared encoder. Our resulting approach, which we call Bayesian Experience Reuse, can be applied for LfD in static and dynamic decision-making settings. We demonstrate its effectiveness for minimizing multi-modal functions, and optimizing a high-dimensional supply chain with cost uncertainty, where it is also shown to improve upon the performance of the demonstrators' policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it