Informed Sampling of Prioritized Experience Replay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experience replay an essential role as an information-generating mechanism plays in reinforcement learning systems that use neural networks as function approximators. It enables the artificial learning agents to store their past experiences in a sliding-window buffer, effectively recycling them in the process of a continual re-training of a neural network. The intermediary process of experience caching opens a possibility for an agent to optimize the order in which the experiences are sampled from the buffer. This may improve the default standard, i.e., the stochastic prioritization based on Temporal-Difference error (or TD-error), which focuses on experiences that carry more Temporal-Difference surprise for the approximator. A notion of informed prioritization is proposed, a method relying on fast on-line confidence estimates of approximator predictions in order to be able to dynamically exploit the benefits of TD-error prioritization only when its prediction confidence about the selected experiences increases. The presented informed-stochastic prioritization method of replay buffer sampling, implemented as a part of standard staple Deep Q-learning algorithm outperformed the vanilla stochastic prioritization based on TD-error in 41 out of 54 trialed Atari games.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".