A Survey of Multi-Task Deep Reinforcement Learning
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
Driven by the recent technological advancements within the field of artificial intelligence research, deep learning has emerged as a promising representation learning technique across all of the machine learning classes, especially within the reinforcement learning arena. This new direction has given rise to the evolution of a new technological domain named deep reinforcement learning, which combines the representational learning power of deep learning with existing reinforcement learning methods. Undoubtedly, the inception of deep reinforcement learning has played a vital role in optimizing the performance of reinforcement learning-based intelligent agents with model-free based approaches. Although these methods could improve the performance of agents to a greater extent, they were mainly limited to systems that adopted reinforcement learning algorithms focused on learning a single task. At the same moment, the aforementioned approach was found to be relatively data-inefficient, particularly when reinforcement learning agents needed to interact with more complex and rich data environments. This is primarily due to the limited applicability of deep reinforcement learning algorithms to many scenarios across related tasks from the same environment. The objective of this paper is to survey the research challenges associated with multi-tasking within the deep reinforcement arena and present the state-of-the-art approaches by comparing and contrasting recent solutions, namely DISTRAL (DIStill & TRAnsfer Learning), IMPALA(Importance Weighted Actor-Learner Architecture) and PopArt that aim to address core challenges such as scalability, distraction dilemma, partial observability, catastrophic forgetting and negative knowledge transfer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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