Planning with Expectation Models for Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL), Wan et al. (2019) showed conditions under which the environment model could produce the expectation of the next feature vector rather than the full distribution, or a sample thereof, with no loss in planning performance. Such expectation models are of interest when the environment is stochastic and non-stationary, and the model is approximate, such as when it is learned using function approximation. In these cases a full distribution model may be impractical and a sample model may be either more expensive computationally or of high variance. Wan et al. considered only planning for prediction to evaluate a fixed policy. In this paper, we treat the control case - planning to improve and find a good approximate policy. We prove that planning with an expectation model must update a state-value function, not an action-value function as previously suggested (e.g., Sorg & Singh, 2010). This opens the question of how planning influences action selections. We consider three strategies for this and present general MBRL algorithms for each. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of these algorithms in computational experiments. Our algorithms and experiments are the first to treat MBRL with expectation models in a general setting.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".