MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124283399 · doi:10.65109/cwyu2303

Two-Level Actor-Critic Using Multiple Teachers

2023· article· W7124283399 on OpenAlexaff
Su Zhang, Srijita Das, Sriram Ganapathi Subramanian, Matthew E. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInefficiencyVariety (cybernetics)Sample (material)Domain (mathematical analysis)Action (physics)Forcing (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement learning (RL) has been successful in a variety of domains ranging from solving difficult games like Go [10] and drug discovery [4]. Most of these domains are characterized by high-dimensional states and continuous action spaces. However, sample inefficiency is a major challenge when applying these algorithms to real-world tasks such as robotics and healthcare care [6]. To address improved sample efficiency, rather than forcing agents to learn from scratch, domain knowledge from humans or existing agents can be leveraged in various ways [3].

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207