MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asymmetric Actor-Critic with Approximate Information State

2023· article· en· W4391021298 on OpenAlexaff
Amit Kumar Sinha, Aditya Mahajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Markov decision processPartially observable Markov decision processState (computer science)Artificial intelligenceObservableComplete informationMathematical optimizationMarkov chainTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningMarkov processAlgorithmMathematical economicsMarkov modelMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement learning (RL) for partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) is a challenging problem because decisions need to be made based on the entire history of observations and actions. However, in several scenarios, state information is available during the training phase. We are interested in exploiting the availability of this state information during the training phase to efficiently learn a history-based policy using RL. Specifically, we consider actor-critic algorithms, where the actor uses only the history information but the critic uses both history and state. Such algorithms are called asymmetric actor-critic, to highlight the fact that the actor and critic have asymmetric information. Motivated by the recent success of using representation losses in RL for POMDPs [1], we derive similar theoretical results for the asymmetric actor-critic case and evaluate the effectiveness of adding such auxiliary losses in experiments. In particular, we learn a history representation-called an approximate information state (AIS)-and bound the performance loss when acting using AIS.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207