Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2312.01939

Foundations for Transfer in Reinforcement Learning: A Taxonomy of Knowledge Modalities

Markus Wulfmeier·Arunkumar Byravan·Sarah Bechtle·Karol Hausman·Nicolas Heess
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Contemporary artificial intelligence systems exhibit rapidly growing abilities accompanied by the growth of required resources, expansive datasets and corresponding investments into computing infrastructure. Although earlier successes predominantly focus on constrained settings, recent strides in fundamental research and applications aspire to create increasingly general systems. This evolving landscape presents a dual panorama of opportunities and challenges in refining the generalisation and transfer of knowledge - the extraction from existing sources and adaptation as a comprehensive foundation for tackling new problems. Within the domain of reinforcement learning (RL), the representation of knowledge manifests through various modalities, including dynamics and reward models, value functions, policies, and the original data. This taxonomy systematically targets these modalities and frames its discussion based on their inherent properties and alignment with different objectives and mechanisms for transfer. Where possible, we aim to provide coarse guidance delineating approaches which address requirements such as limiting environment interactions, maximising computational efficiency, and enhancing generalisation across varying axes of change. Finally, we analyse reasons contributing to the prevalence or scarcity of specific forms of transfer, the inherent potential behind pushing these frontiers, and underscore the significance of transitioning from designed to learned transfer.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AIcs.ROstat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Markus Wulfmeier, Arunkumar Byravan, Sarah Bechtle, Karol Hausman, Nicolas Heess. 2023-12-04. Foundations for Transfer in Reinforcement Learning: A Taxonomy of Knowledge Modalities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.01939

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗