Cited by 95Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsMachine Learning and AlgorithmsAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research

APRIL: Active Preference Learning-Based Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Akrour, Riad, Schoenauer, Marc, Sebag, Michèle·2012·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-642-33486-3_8

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Akrour et al. consider continuous domains with four degrees of freedom and small discrete domains, where they can assume that the reward is linear in the expectations of hand-coded features.

    “They consider continuous domains with four degrees of freedom and small discrete domains, where they can assume that the reward is linear in the expectations of hand-coded features.”

    From Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences (2017) · cites this paper as Akrour et al. (2012)

    Section 4.2 (pp. 11–13) studies a continuous-action cancer-treatment problem and a discrete-action mountain-car problem, but reports policy search spaces of 397 and 37 dimensions, not continuous domains with four degrees of freedom. It also says neither benchmark has a reward function. Section 3.1 (p. 7) says the behavioral features are derived from clustered sensor and actuator data without domain knowledge, contrary to the claim that the method assumes a reward linear in hand-coded features. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our algorithm follows the same basic approach as Akrour et al. (2012) and Akrour et al. (2014).

    “Our algorithm follows the same basic approach as Akrour et al. (2012) and Akrour et al. (2014).”

    From Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences (2017) · cites this paper as Akrour et al. (2012)

  • Akrour et al. elicit preferences over whole trajectories rather than short clips.

    “One notable difference is that Akrour et al. (2012) and Akrour et al. (2014) elicit preferences over whole trajectories rather than short clips.”

    From Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences (2017) · cites this paper as Akrour et al. (2012)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [10]10. Gunopulos, D., Hofmann, T., Malerba, D., Vazirgiannis, M. (eds.): Proc. European Conf. on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, ECML PKDD, Part I. LNCS 6911, Springer Verlag (2011)
  2. [14]14. Herbrich, R., Graepel, T., Campbell, C.: Bayes point machines. Journal of Machine Learning Research 1, 245-279 (2001)
  3. [20]20. Lagoudakis, M., Parr, R.: Least-squares policy iteration. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR) 4, 1107-1149 (2003)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akrour, R., Schoenauer, M., & Sebag, M.
Affiliations
Université Paris-Sud (FR)
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2012
Pages
116-131
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W1583953806
Cited by
95
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6
FWCI
2.70
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Keywords
preference-based reinforcement learning, active learning (machine learning), expert preferences, swarm robotics, ranking queries, mountain car

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review