MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Decision Frequency with Continuous Options

2023· article· en· W4389667406 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirmohammad Karimi, Jun Jin, Jun Luo, A. Rupam Mahmood, Martin Jägersand, Samuele Tosatto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperparameterComputer scienceReinforcement learningAbstractionDuration (music)Task (project management)Control (management)Action (physics)Variable (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In classic reinforcement learning algorithms, agents make decisions at discrete and fixed time intervals. The duration between decisions becomes a crucial hyperparameter, as setting it too short may increase the problem's difficulty by requiring the agent to make numerous decisions to achieve its goal while setting it too long can result in the agent losing control over the system. However, physical systems do not necessarily require a constant control frequency, and for learning agents, it is often preferable to operate with a low frequency when possible and a high frequency when necessary. We propose a framework called Continuous-Time Continuous-Options (CTCO), where the agent chooses options as sub-policies of variable durations. These options are time-continuous and can interact with the system at any desired frequency providing a smooth change of actions. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CTCO by comparing its performance to classical RL and temporal-abstraction RL methods on simulated continuous control tasks with various action-cycle times. We show that our algorithm's performance is not affected by the choice of environment interaction frequency. Furthermore, we demonstrate the efficacy of CTCO in facilitating exploration in a real-world visual reaching task for a 7 DOF robotic arm with sparse rewards.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207