MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381733153 · doi:10.3233/faia230098

Reinforcement Learning Requires Human-in-the-Loop Framing and Approaches

2023· book-chapter· en· W4381733153 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew E. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningHuman-in-the-loopFraming (construction)Computer scienceMarkov decision processSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceMarkov processEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement learning (RL) is typically framed as a machine learning paradigm where agents learn to act autonomously in complex environments. This paper argues instead that RL is fundamentally human in the loop (HitL). The reward functions (and other components) of a Markov decision process are defined by humans. The decisions to tackle a certain problem, and deploy a learned solution, are taken by humans. Humans can also play a critical role in providing information to the agent throughout its life cycle to better succeed at the problem in question. We end by highlighting a set of critical HitL research questions, which, if ignored, could cause RL to fail to live up to its full potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207