Hierarchical Framework for Interpretable and Probabilistic Model-Based Safe Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difficulty of identifying the physical model of complex systems has led to exploring methods that do not rely on such complex modeling of the systems. Deep reinforcement learning has been the pioneer for solving this problem without the need for relying on the physical model of complex systems by just interacting with it. However, it uses a black-box learning approach that makes it difficult to be applied within real-world and safety-critical systems without providing explanations of the actions derived by the model. Furthermore, an open research question in deep reinforcement learning is how to focus the policy learning of critical decisions within a sparse domain. This paper proposes a novel approach for the use of deep reinforcement learning in safety-critical systems. It combines the advantages of probabilistic modeling and reinforcement learning with the added benefits of interpretability and works in collaboration and synchronization with conventional decision-making strategies. The BC-SRLA is activated in specific situations which are identified autonomously through the fused information of probabilistic model and reinforcement learning, such as abnormal conditions or when the system is near-to-failure. Further, it is initialized with a baseline policy using policy cloning to allow minimum interactions with the environment to address the challenges associated with using RL in safety-critical industries. The effectiveness of the BC-SRLA is demonstrated through a case study in maintenance applied to turbofan engines, where it shows superior performance to the prior art and other baselines.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".