The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dual Control for Approximate Bayesian Reinforcement Learning
Abstract
Control of non-episodic, finite-horizon dynamical systems with uncertain dynamics poses a tough and elementary case of the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Bayesian reinforcement learning, reasoning about the effect of actions and future observations, offers a principled solution, but is intractable. We review, then extend an old approximate approach from control theory---where the problem is known as dual control---in the context of modern regression methods, specifically generalized linear regression. Experiments on simulated systems show that this framework offers a useful approximation to the intractable aspects of Bayesian RL, producing structured exploration strategies that differ from standard RL approaches. We provide simple examples for the use of this framework in (approximate) Gaussian process regression and feedforward neural networks for the control of exploration.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Metadata
- Authors
- Klenske, E. D., & Hennig, P.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2015
- arXiv
- 1510.03591
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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