MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384574988 · doi:10.23952/jano.5.2023.2.01

Multi-step actor-critic framework for reinforcement learning in continuous control

2023· article· en· W4384574988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningTemporal difference learningComputer scienceSequence (biology)State (computer science)Control (management)Artificial intelligenceReinforcementOptimal controlAction (physics)Machine learningMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous control is an important issue in control theory.It controls an agent to take action in continuous spaces for transiting from one state to another until achieving the desired goal.A useful tool for this issue is the reinforcement learning where an optimal policy is learned for the agent by maximizing the cumulative reward of the state transitions.However, most existing reinforcement learning methods consider only the one-step transition and one-step reward in each state.In this case, it is hard to recognize the information hidden in the sequence of the previous states and accurately estimate the cumulative reward.Therefore, these methods cannot learn the optimal policy both fast and effectively for continuous control.To solve this problem, in this paper, we propose a new framework, called Multi-step Actor-critic Framework (MAF) for reinforcement learning.In MAF, the convolutional deterministic policy is used to learn the information hidden in the sequence of the previous states by convolutional neural networks, and then n-step temporal difference learning is used to accurately estimate the cumulative reward by considering the rewards from n-step states.Based on an effective reinforcement learning method, TD3, the implementation of our MAF is in nTD3.The theoretical analysis and experiment illustrate that our nTD3 can learn the policy not only better but also faster than the existing RL methods for continuous control.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207