Policy-based Reinforcement Learning for Generalisation in Interactive Text-based Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text-based environments enable RL agents to learn to converse and perform interactive tasks through natural language. However, previous RL approaches applied to text-based environments show poor performance when evaluated on unseen games. This paper investigates the improvement of generalisation performance through the simple switch from a value-based update method to a policy-based one, within text-based environments. We show that by replacing commonly used value-based methods with REINFORCE with baseline, a far more general agent is produced. The policy-based agent is evaluated on Coin Collector and Question Answering with interactive text (QAit), two text-based environments designed to test zero-shot performance. We see substantial improvements on a variety of zero-shot evaluation experiments, including tripling accuracy on various QAit benchmark configurations. The results indicate that policy-based RL has significantly better generalisation capabilities than value-based methods within such text-based environments, suggesting that RL agents could be applied to more complex natural language environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".