Learning High-Risk High-Precision Motion Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms for movement control are typically evaluated and benchmarked on sequential decision tasks where imprecise actions may be corrected with later actions, thus allowing high returns with noisy actions. In contrast, we focus on an under-researched class of high-risk, high-precision motion control problems where actions carry irreversible outcomes, driving sharp peaks and ridges to plague the state-action reward landscape. Using computational pool as a representative example of such problems, we propose and evaluate State-Conditioned Shooting (SCOOT), a novel DRL algorithm that builds on advantage-weighted regression (AWR) with three key modifications: 1) Performing policy optimization only using elite samples, allowing the policy to better latch on to the rare high-reward action samples; 2) Utilizing a mixture-of-experts (MoE) policy, to allow switching between reward landscape modes depending on the state; 3) Adding a distance regularization term and a learning curriculum to encourage exploring diverse strategies before adapting to the most advantageous samples. We showcase our features’ performance in learning physically-based billiard shots demonstrating high action precision and discovering multiple shot strategies for a given ball configuration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".