MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064595611

Biologically-Based Neural Representations Enable Fast Online Shallow Reinforcement Learning

2022· article· en· W7064595611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningTask (project management)Representation (politics)Artificial neural networkGridDeep learningSimple (philosophy)Feature learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological brains learn much more quickly than standard deep neural network reinforcement learning algorithms. One reason for this is that the deep neural networks need to learn a representation that is appropriate for the task at hand, whilst biological systems already possess an appropriate representation. Here, we bypass this problem by imposing on the neural network a representation based on what is observed in biology, such as grid cells. This study explores the impact of using a biologically-inspired grid-cell representation vs. a one-hot representation, on the speed at which a Temporal Difference-based Actor-Critic network learns to solve a simple 2D gridworld reinforcement learning task. The results suggest that the use of grid cells does promote faster learning. Furthermore, the grid cells implemented here have the potential for accurately representing unbounded continuous space. Thus, their promising performance on this discrete task acts as a first step in exploring their utility for reinforcement learning in continuous space. © 2022 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207