InnateCoder: Learning Programmatic Options with Foundation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outside of transfer learning settings, reinforcement learning agents start their learning process from a clean slate. As a result, such agents have to go through a slow process to learn even the most obvious skills required to solve a problem. In this paper, we present InnateCoder, a system that leverages human knowledge encoded in foundation models to provide programmatic policies that encode ``innate skills'' in the form of temporally extended actions, or options. In contrast to existing approaches to learning options, InnateCoder learns them from the general human knowledge encoded in foundation models in a zero-shot setting, and not from the knowledge the agent gains by interacting with the environment. Then, InnateCoder searches for a programmatic policy by combining the programs encoding these options into larger and more complex programs. We hypothesized that InnateCoder's way of learning and using options could improve the sampling efficiency of current methods for learning programmatic policies. Empirical results in MicroRTS and Karel the Robot support our hypothesis, since they show that InnateCoder is more sample efficient than versions of the system that do not use options or learn them from experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".