Reinforcement Learning Algorithms: An Overview and Classification
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
The desire to make applications and machines more intelligent and the aspiration to enable their operation without human interaction have been driving innovations in neural networks, deep learning, and other machine learning techniques. Although reinforcement learning has been primarily used in video games, recent advancements and the development of diverse and powerful reinforcement algorithms have enabled the reinforcement learning community to move from playing video games to solving complex real-life problems in autonomous systems such as self-driving cars, delivery drones, and automated robotics. Understanding the environment of an application and the algorithms' limitations plays a vital role in selecting the appropriate reinforcement learning algorithm that successfully solves the problem on hand in an efficient manner. Consequently, in this study, we identify three main environment types and classify reinforcement learning algorithms according to those environment types. Moreover, within each category, we identify relationships between algorithms. The overview of each algorithm provides insight into the algorithms' foundations and reviews similarities and differences among algorithms. This study provides a perspective on the field and helps practitioners and researchers to select the appropriate algorithm for their use case.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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