亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

The reinforcement learning (RL) problem is rife with sources of non-stationarity, making it a notoriously difficult problem domain for the application of neural networks. We identify a mechanism by which non-stationary prediction targets can prevent learning progress in deep RL agents: \textit{capacity loss}, whereby networks trained on a sequence of target values lose their ability to quickly update their predictions over time. We demonstrate that capacity loss occurs in a range of RL agents and environments, and is particularly damaging to performance in sparse-reward tasks. We then present a simple regularizer, Initial Feature Regularization (InFeR), that mitigates this phenomenon by regressing a subspace of features towards its value at initialization, leading to significant performance improvements in sparse-reward environments such as Montezuma's Revenge. We conclude that preventing capacity loss is crucial to enable agents to maximally benefit from the learning signals they obtain throughout the entire training trajectory.

Given its status as a classic problem and its importance to both theoreticians and practitioners, edit distance provides an excellent lens through which to understand how the theoretical analysis of algorithms impacts practical implementations. From an applied perspective, the goals of theoretical analysis are to predict the empirical performance of an algorithm and to serve as a yardstick to design novel algorithms that perform well in practice. In this paper, we systematically survey the types of theoretical analysis techniques that have been applied to edit distance and evaluate the extent to which each one has achieved these two goals. These techniques include traditional worst-case analysis, worst-case analysis parametrized by edit distance or entropy or compressibility, average-case analysis, semi-random models, and advice-based models. We find that the track record is mixed. On one hand, two algorithms widely used in practice have been born out of theoretical analysis and their empirical performance is captured well by theoretical predictions. On the other hand, all the algorithms developed using theoretical analysis as a yardstick since then have not had any practical relevance. We conclude by discussing the remaining open problems and how they can be tackled.

The stochastic nature of iterative optimization heuristics leads to inherently noisy performance measurements. Since these measurements are often gathered once and then used repeatedly, the number of collected samples will have a significant impact on the reliability of algorithm comparisons. We show that care should be taken when making decisions based on limited data. Particularly, we show that the number of runs used in many benchmarking studies, e.g., the default value of 15 suggested by the COCO environment, can be insufficient to reliably rank algorithms on well-known numerical optimization benchmarks. Additionally, methods for automated algorithm configuration are sensitive to insufficient sample sizes. This may result in the configurator choosing a `lucky' but poor-performing configuration despite exploring better ones. We show that relying on mean performance values, as many configurators do, can require a large number of runs to provide accurate comparisons between the considered configurations. Common statistical tests can greatly improve the situation in most cases but not always. We show examples of performance losses of more than 20%, even when using statistical races to dynamically adjust the number of runs, as done by irace. Our results underline the importance of appropriately considering the statistical distribution of performance values.

We introduce a subclass of concurrent game structures (CGS) with imperfect information in which agents are endowed with private data-sharing capabilities. Importantly, our CGSs are such that it is still decidable to model-check these CGSs against a relevant fragment of ATL. These systems can be thought as a generalisation of architectures allowing information forks, in the sense that, in the initial states of the system, we allow information forks from agents outside a given set A to agents inside this A. For this reason, together with the fact that the communication in our models underpins a specialised form of broadcast, we call our formalism A-cast systems. To underline, the fragment of ATL for which we show the model-checking problem to be decidable over A-cast is a large and significant one; it expresses coalitions over agents in any subset of the set A. Indeed, as we show, our systems and this ATL fragments can encode security problems that are notoriously hard to express faithfully: terrorist-fraud attacks in identity schemes.

Empirical results in software engineering have long started to show that findings are unlikely to be applicable to all software systems, or any domain: results need to be evaluated in specified contexts, and limited to the type of systems that they were extracted from. This is a known issue, and requires the establishment of a classification of software types. This paper makes two contributions: the first is to evaluate the quality of the current software classifications landscape. The second is to perform a case study showing how to create a classification of software types using a curated set of software systems. Our contributions show that existing, and very likely even new, classification attempts are deemed to fail for one or more issues, that we named as the `antipatterns' of software classification tasks. We collected 7 of these antipatterns that emerge from both our case study, and the existing classifications. These antipatterns represent recurring issues in a classification, so we discuss practical ways to help researchers avoid these pitfalls. It becomes clear that classification attempts must also face the daunting task of formulating a taxonomy of software types, with the objective of establishing a hierarchy of categories in a classification.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown promise as a tool for engineering safe, ethical, or legal behaviour in autonomous agents. Its use typically relies on assigning punishments to state-action pairs that constitute unsafe or unethical choices. Despite this assignment being a crucial step in this approach, however, there has been limited discussion on generalizing the process of selecting punishments and deciding where to apply them. In this paper, we adopt an approach that leverages an existing framework -- the normative supervisor of (Neufeld et al., 2021) -- during training. This normative supervisor is used to dynamically translate states and the applicable normative system into defeasible deontic logic theories, feed these theories to a theorem prover, and use the conclusions derived to decide whether or not to assign a punishment to the agent. We use multi-objective RL (MORL) to balance the ethical objective of avoiding violations with a non-ethical objective; we will demonstrate that our approach works for a multiplicity of MORL techniques, and show that it is effective regardless of the magnitude of the punishment we assign.

With the advent of open source software, a veritable treasure trove of previously proprietary software development data was made available. This opened the field of empirical software engineering research to anyone in academia. Data that is mined from software projects, however, requires extensive processing and needs to be handled with utmost care to ensure valid conclusions. Since the software development practices and tools have changed over two decades, we aim to understand the state-of-the-art research workflows and to highlight potential challenges. We employ a systematic literature review by sampling over one thousand papers from leading conferences and by analyzing the 286 most relevant papers from the perspective of data workflows, methodologies, reproducibility, and tools. We found that an important part of the research workflow involving dataset selection was particularly problematic, which raises questions about the generality of the results in existing literature. Furthermore, we found a considerable number of papers provide little or no reproducibility instructions -- a substantial deficiency for a data-intensive field. In fact, 33% of papers provide no information on how their data was retrieved. Based on these findings, we propose ways to address these shortcomings via existing tools and also provide recommendations to improve research workflows and the reproducibility of research.

Requirements engineering (RE) activities for Machine Learning (ML) are not well-established and researched in the literature. Many issues and challenges exist when specifying, designing, and developing ML-enabled systems. Adding more focus on RE for ML can help to develop more reliable ML-enabled systems. Based on insights collected from previous work and industrial experiences, we propose a catalogue of 45 concerns to be considered when specifying ML-enabled systems, covering five different perspectives we identified as relevant for such systems: objectives, user experience, infrastructure, model, and data. Examples of such concerns include the execution engine and telemetry for the infrastructure perspective, and explainability and reproducibility for the model perspective. We conducted a focus group session with eight software professionals with experience developing ML-enabled systems to validate the importance, quality and feasibility of using our catalogue. The feedback allowed us to improve the catalogue and confirmed its practical relevance. The main research contribution of this work consists in providing a validated set of concerns grouped into perspectives that can be used by requirements engineers to support the specification of ML-enabled systems.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has shown great success in solving many challenging tasks via use of deep neural networks. Although using deep learning for RL brings immense representational power, it also causes a well-known sample-inefficiency problem. This means that the algorithms are data-hungry and require millions of training samples to converge to an adequate policy. One way to combat this issue is to use action advising in a teacher-student framework, where a knowledgeable teacher provides action advice to help the student. This work considers how to better leverage uncertainties about when a student should ask for advice and if the student can model the teacher to ask for less advice. The student could decide to ask for advice when it is uncertain or when both it and its model of the teacher are uncertain. In addition to this investigation, this paper introduces a new method to compute uncertainty for a deep RL agent using a secondary neural network. Our empirical results show that using dual uncertainties to drive advice collection and reuse may improve learning performance across several Atari games.

Current deep learning research is dominated by benchmark evaluation. A method is regarded as favorable if it empirically performs well on the dedicated test set. This mentality is seamlessly reflected in the resurfacing area of continual learning, where consecutively arriving sets of benchmark data are investigated. The core challenge is framed as protecting previously acquired representations from being catastrophically forgotten due to the iterative parameter updates. However, comparison of individual methods is nevertheless treated in isolation from real world application and typically judged by monitoring accumulated test set performance. The closed world assumption remains predominant. It is assumed that during deployment a model is guaranteed to encounter data that stems from the same distribution as used for training. This poses a massive challenge as neural networks are well known to provide overconfident false predictions on unknown instances and break down in the face of corrupted data. In this work we argue that notable lessons from open set recognition, the identification of statistically deviating data outside of the observed dataset, and the adjacent field of active learning, where data is incrementally queried such that the expected performance gain is maximized, are frequently overlooked in the deep learning era. Based on these forgotten lessons, we propose a consolidated view to bridge continual learning, active learning and open set recognition in deep neural networks. Our results show that this not only benefits each individual paradigm, but highlights the natural synergies in a common framework. We empirically demonstrate improvements when alleviating catastrophic forgetting, querying data in active learning, selecting task orders, while exhibiting robust open world application where previously proposed methods fail.