MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stabilizing reinforcement learning control: A modular framework for optimizing over all stable behavior

2024· article· en· W4393103270 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan P. Lawrence, Philip D. Loewen, Shuyuan Wang, Michael G. Forbes, R. Bhushan Gopaluni

Bibliographic record

VenueAutomatica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdaptive Dynamic Programming Control
Canadian institutionsHoneywell (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningModular designStability (learning theory)ReinforcementControl (management)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a framework for the design of feedback controllers that combines the optimization-driven and model-free advantages of deep reinforcement learning with the stability guarantees provided by using the Youla-Kučera parameterization to define the search domain. Recent advances in behavioral systems allow us to construct a data-driven internal model; this enables an alternative realization of the Youla-Kučera parameterization based entirely on input–output exploration data. Perhaps of independent interest, we formulate and analyze the stability of such data-driven models in the presence of noise. The Youla-Kučera approach requires a stable “parameter” for controller design. For the training of reinforcement learning agents, the set of all stable linear operators is given explicitly through a matrix factorization approach. Moreover, a nonlinear extension is given using a neural network to express a parameterized set of stable operators, which enables seamless integration with standard deep learning libraries. Finally, we show how these ideas can also be applied to tune fixed-structure controllers

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutomaticaSame topicAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlFrench-language works237,207