An Arbitration Control for an Ensemble of Diversified DQN Variants in Continual Reinforcement Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep reinforcement learning (RL) models, despite their efficiency in learning an optimal policy in static environments, easily loses previously learned knowledge (i.e., catastrophic forgetting). It leads RL models to poor performance in continual reinforcement learning (CRL) scenarios. To address this, we present an arbitration control mechanism over an ensemble of RL agents. It is motivated by and closely aligned with how humans make decisions in a CRL context using an arbitration control of multiple RL agents in parallel as observed in the prefrontal cortex. We integrated two key ideas into our model: (1) an ensemble of RLs (i.e., DQN variants) explicitly trained to have diverse value functions and (2) an arbitration control that prioritizes agents with higher reliability (i.e., less error) in recent trials. We propose a framework for CRL, an Arbitration Control for an Ensemble of Diversified DQN variants (ACED-DQN). We demonstrate significant performance improvements in both static and continual environments, supported by empirical evidence showing the effectiveness of arbitration control over diversified DQNs during training. In this work, we introduced a framework that enables RL agents to continuously learn, with inspiration from the human brain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it