MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124320494 · doi:10.65109/vaba4866

PADDLE: Logic Program Guided Policy Reuse in Deep Reinforcement Learning

2024· article· W7124320494 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Zhang, Tianpei Yang, Yan Zheng, Jianye Hao, Matthew E. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseReinforcement learningMetric (unit)TransferabilityTask (project management)Similarity (geometry)Measure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning new skills through previous experience is regular in human life, which is the core idea of Transfer Reinforcement Learning (TRL). TRL requires the agent to learn when and which source policy is the best to reuse as the target task's policy and how to reuse the source policy. Most TRL methods learn, transfer, and reuse black-box policies, which is hard to explain: 1) when to reuse, 2) which source policy is effective, and reduces transfer efficiency. In this paper, we propose a novel TRL method called ProgrAm gui DeD poLicy rEuse (PADDLE). PADDLE can measure the logic similarities between tasks and transfer knowledge which reflects the logic behind the target task. To achieve this, we propose a hybrid decision model that synthesizes high-level logic programs and learns low-level DRL policy to learn source tasks. Second, we propose a transferability metric that can measure the logic similarity between the target task and source tasks. Last, we combine it with the low-level policy similarity to select the appropriate source policy as the guiding policy for the target task. Experimental results show that PADDLE can effectively select the appropriate source tasks to guide learning on the target task, outperforming black-box TRL methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207