MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035954878 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.13169

Experience Replay with Likelihood-free Importance Weights

2020· preprint· en· W3035954878 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceEstimatorTemporal difference learningSuiteKey (lock)Baseline (sea)Bellman equationFunction (biology)Sample (material)Artificial intelligencePrioritizationMachine learningMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of past experiences to accelerate temporal difference (TD) learning of value functions, or experience replay, is a key component in deep reinforcement learning. Prioritization or reweighting of important experiences has shown to improve performance of TD learning algorithms.In this work, we propose to reweight experiences based on their likelihood under the stationary distribution of the current policy. Using the corresponding reweighted TD objective, we implicitly encourage small approximation errors on the value function over frequently encountered states. We use a likelihood-free density ratio estimator over the replay buffer to assign the prioritization weights. We apply the proposed approach empirically on two competitive methods, Soft Actor Critic (SAC) and Twin Delayed Deep Deterministic policy gradient (TD3) -- over a suite of OpenAI gym tasks and achieve superior sample complexity compared to other baseline approaches.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
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 score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.004
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.130 · 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