Learning Optimal Policies in Mean Field Models with Kullback-Leibler Regularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory and application of mean field games has grown significantly since its origins less than two decades ago. This paper considers a special class in which the game is cooperative, and the cost includes a control penalty defined by Kullback-Leibler divergence, as commonly used in reinforcement learning and other fields. Its use as a control cost or regularizer is often preferred because this leads to an attractive solution. This paper considers a particular control paradigm called Kullback-Leibler Quadratic (KLQ) optimal control, and arrives at the following conclusions: 1. in application to distributed control of electric loads, a new modeling technique is introduced to obtain a simple Markov model for each load (the ‘agent’ in mean field theory). 2. It is argued that the optimality equations may be solved using Monte-Carlo techniques—a specialized version of stochastic gradient descent (SGD). 3. The use of averaging minimizes the asymptotic covariance in the SGD algorithm; the form of the optimal covariance is identified for the first time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".