New Approach in Human-AI Interaction by Reinforcement-Imitation 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
Reinforcement Learning (RL) provides effective results with an agent learning from a stand-alone reward function. However, it presents unique challenges with large amounts of environment states and action spaces, as well as in the determination of rewards. Imitation Learning (IL) offers a promising solution for those challenges using a teacher. In IL, the learning process can take advantage of human-sourced assistance and/or control over the agent and environment. A human teacher and an agent learner are considered in this study. The teacher takes part in the agent’s training towards dealing with the environment, tackling a specific objective, and achieving a predefined goal. This paper proposes a novel approach combining IL with different types of RL methods, namely, state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) and Asynchronous Advantage Actor–Critic Agents (A3C), to overcome the problems of both stand-alone systems. How to effectively leverage the teacher’s feedback—be it direct binary or indirect detailed—for the agent learner to learn sequential decision-making policies is addressed. The results of this study on various OpenAI-Gym environments show that this algorithmic method can be incorporated with different combinations, and significantly decreases both human endeavors and tedious exploration process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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