MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409361576 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i25.34864

ModelDiff: Symbolic Dynamic Programming for Model-Aware Policy Transfer in Deep Q-Learning

2025· article· en· W4409361576 on OpenAlexaff
X. Liu, Jihwan Jeong, Ayal Taitler, Michael Gimelfarb, Scott Sanner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransfer of learningTransfer (computing)Dynamic programmingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageParallel computingAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant recent advances in the field of Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), such methods typically incur high cost of training to learn effective policies, thus posing cost and safety challenges in many practical applications. To improve the learning efficiency of (D)RL methods, transfer learning (TL) has emerged as a promising approach to leverage prior experience on a source domain to speed learning on a new, but related, target domain. In this paper, we take a novel model-informed approach to TL in DRL by assuming that we have knowledge of both the source and target domain models (which would be the case in the prevalent setting of DRL with simulators). While directly solving either the source or target MDP via solution methods like value iteration is computationally prohibitive, we exploit the fact that if the target and source MDPs differ only due to a small structural change in their rewards, we can apply structured value iteration methods in a procedure we term ModelDiff to solve the much smaller target-source ``Diff'' MDP for a reasonable horizon. This ModelDiff approach can then be integrated into extensions of standard DRL algorithms like ModelDiff (MD) DQN, where it provides enhanced provable lower bound guidance to DQN that often speeds convergence for the positive transfer case while critically avoiding decelerated learning in the negative transfer case. Experiments show that MD-DQN matches or outperforms existing TL methods and baselines in both positive and negative transfer settings.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207