Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data-driven offline reinforcement learning and imitation learning approaches have been gaining popularity in addressing sequential decision-making problems. Yet, these approaches rarely consider learning Pareto-optimal policies from a limited pool of expert datasets. This becomes particularly marked due to practical limitations in obtaining comprehensive datasets for all preferences, where multiple conflicting objectives exist and each expert might hold a unique optimization preference for these objectives. In this paper, we adapt inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) by using reward distance estimates for regularizing the discriminator. This enables progressive generation of a set of policies that accommodate diverse preferences on the multiple objectives, while using only two distinct datasets, each associated with a different expert preference. In doing so, we present a Pareto IRL framework (ParIRL) that establishes a Pareto policy set from these limited datasets. In the framework, the Pareto policy set is then distilled into a single, preference-conditioned diffusion model, thus allowing users to immediately specify which expert's patterns they prefer. Through experiments, we show that ParIRL outperforms other IRL algorithms for various multi-objective control tasks, achieving the dense approximation of the Pareto frontier. We also demonstrate the applicability of ParIRL with autonomous driving in CARLA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".