Adversarial Soft Advantage Fitting: Imitation Learning without Policy Optimization
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
Adversarial Imitation Learning alternates between learning a discriminator -- which tells apart expert's demonstrations from generated ones -- and a generator's policy to produce trajectories that can fool this discriminator. This alternated optimization is known to be delicate in practice since it compounds unstable adversarial training with brittle and sample-inefficient reinforcement learning. We propose to remove the burden of the policy optimization steps by leveraging a novel discriminator formulation. Specifically, our discriminator is explicitly conditioned on two policies: the one from the previous generator's iteration and a learnable policy. When optimized, this discriminator directly learns the optimal generator's policy. Consequently, our discriminator's update solves the generator's optimization problem for free: learning a policy that imitates the expert does not require an additional optimization loop. This formulation effectively cuts by half the implementation and computational burden of Adversarial Imitation Learning algorithms by removing the Reinforcement Learning phase altogether. We show on a variety of tasks that our simpler approach is competitive to prevalent Imitation Learning methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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