MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168197022

Improved Regret Bound and Experience Replay in Regularized Policy Iteration

2021· article· en· W3168197022 on OpenAlexaff
Nevena Lazic, Dong Yin, Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, Csaba Szepesvári

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Machine Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretMarkov decision processComputer scienceFunction (biology)ComputationMathematical optimizationUpper and lower boundsBellman equationSimple (philosophy)Function approximationAlgorithmMarkov processMathematicsArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we study algorithms for learning in infinite-horizon undiscounted Markov decision processes (MDPs) with function approximation. We first show that the regret analysis of the Politex algorithm (a version of regularized policy iteration) can be sharpened from $O(T^{3/4})$ to $O(\sqrt{T})$ under nearly identical assumptions, and instantiate the bound with linear function approximation. Our result provides the first high-probability $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret bound for a computationally efficient algorithm in this setting. The exact implementation of Politex with neural network function approximation is inefficient in terms of memory and computation. Since our analysis suggests that we need to approximate the average of the action-value functions of past policies well, we propose a simple efficient implementation where we train a single Q-function on a replay buffer with past data. We show that this often leads to superior performance over other implementation choices, especially in terms of wall-clock time. Our work also provides a novel theoretical justification for using experience replay within policy iteration algorithms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Machine LearningSame topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207