MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Guiding Reinforcement Learning with Incomplete System Dynamics

2024· article· en· W4405778651 on OpenAlexaff
Shuyuan Wang, Jingliang Duan, Nathan P. Lawrence, Philip D. Loewen, Michael G. Forbes, R. Bhushan Gopaluni, Lixian Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsHoneywell (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceDynamics (music)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model-free reinforcement learning (RL) is inherently a reactive method, operating under the assumption that it starts with no prior knowledge of the system and entirely depends on trial-and-error for learning. This approach faces several challenges, such as poor sample efficiency, generalization, and the need for well-designed reward functions to guide learning effectively. On the other hand, controllers based on complete system dynamics do not require data. This paper addresses the intermediate situation where there is not enough model information for complete controller design, but there is enough to suggest that a model-free approach is not the best approach either. By carefully decoupling known and unknown information about the system dynamics, we obtain an embedded controller guided by our partial model and thus improve the learning efficiency of an RL-enhanced approach. A modular design allows us to deploy mainstream RL algorithms to refine the policy. Simulation results show that our method significantly improves sample efficiency compared with standard RL methods on continuous control tasks, and also offers enhanced performance over traditional control approaches. Experiments on a real ground vehicle also validate the performance of our method, including generalization and robustness.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207