Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1153056. 	[Title]  [Abstract] Multigrid Q-Learning Charles W. Anderson and Stewart G. Crawford-Hines Technical Report CS-94-121 October 11, 1994 Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #128. 	[Title] Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Average-Payoff Markovian Decision Processes [Abstract] Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a central paradigm for solving learning-control problems in robotics and artificial intelligence. RL researchers have focussed almost exclusively on problems where the controller has to maximize the discounted sum of payoffs. However, as emphasized by Schwartz (1993), in many problems, e.g., those for which the optimal behavior is a limit cycle, it is more natural and com-putationally advantageous to formulate tasks so that the controller's objective is to maximize the average payoff received per time step. In this paper I derive new average-payoff RL algorithms as stochastic approximation methods for solving the system of equations associated with the policy evaluation and optimal control questions in average-payoff RL tasks. These algorithms are analogous to the popular TD and Q-learning algorithms already developed for the discounted-payoff case. One of the algorithms derived here is a significant variation of Schwartz's R-learning algorithm. Preliminary empirical results are presented to validate these new algorithms. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #95586. 	[Title] Roles of Macro-Actions in Accelerating Reinforcement Learning [Abstract] We analyze the use of built-in policies, or macro-actions, as a form of domain knowledge that can improve the speed and scaling of reinforcement learning algorithms. Such macro-actions are often used in robotics, and macro-operators are also well-known as an aid to state-space search in AI systems. The macro-actions we consider are closed-loop policies with termination conditions. The macro-actions can be chosen at the same level as primitive actions. Macro-actions commit the learning agent to act in a particular, purposeful way for a sustained period of time. Overall, macro-actions may either accelerate or retard learning, depending on the appropriateness of the macro-actions to the particular task. We analyze their effect in a simple example, breaking the acceleration effect into two parts: 1) the effect of the macro-action in changing exploratory behavior, independent of learning, and 2) the effect of the macro-action on learning, independent of its effect on behavior. In our example, both effects are significant, but the latter appears to be larger. Finally, we provide a more complex gridworld illustration of how appropriately chosen macro-actions can accelerate overall learning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28387. 	[Title] On the Complexity of Solving Markov Decision Problems [Abstract] Markov decision problems (MDPs) provide the foundations for a number of problems of interest to AI researchers studying automated planning and reinforcement learning. In this paper, we summarize results regarding the complexity of solving MDPs and the running time of MDP solution algorithms. We argue that, although MDPs can be solved efficiently in theory, more study is needed to reveal practical algorithms for solving large problems quickly. To encourage future research, we sketch some alternative methods of analysis that rely on the struc ture of MDPs. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #81350. 	[Title] Learning to Use Selective Attention and Short-Term Memory in Sequential Tasks [Abstract] This paper presents U-Tree, a reinforcement learning algorithm that uses selective attention and short-term memory to simultaneously address the intertwined problems of large perceptual state spaces and hidden state. By combining the advantages of work in instance-based (or memory-based) learning and work with robust statistical tests for separating noise from task structure, the method learns quickly, creates only task-relevant state distinctions, and handles noise well. U-Tree uses a tree-structured representation, and is related to work on Prediction Suffix Trees [ Ron et al., 1994 ] , Parti-game [ Moore, 1993 ] , G-algorithm [ Chap-man and Kaelbling, 1991 ] , and Variable Resolution Dynamic Programming [ Moore, 1991 ] . It builds on Utile Suffix Memory [ McCallum, 1995c ] , which only used short-term memory, not selective perception. The algorithm is demonstrated solving a highway driving task in which the agent weaves around slower and faster traffic. The agent uses active perception with simulated eye movements. The environment has hidden state, time pressure, stochasticity, over 21,000 world states and over 2,500 percepts. From this environment and sensory system, the agent uses a utile distinction test to build a tree that represents depth-three memory where necessary, and has just 143 internal statesfar fewer than the 2500 3 states that would have resulted from a fixed-sized history-window ap proach. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #28487. 	[Title] LEARNING TO SOLVE MARKOVIAN DECISION PROCESSES [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6214. 	[Title] Integrated Architectures for Learning, Planning, and Reacting Based on Approximating Dynamic Programming [Abstract] This paper extends previous work with Dyna, a class of architectures for intelligent systems based on approximating dynamic programming methods. Dyna architectures integrate trial-and-error (reinforcement) learning and execution-time planning into a single process operating alternately on the world and on a learned model of the world. In this paper, I present and show results for two Dyna architectures. The Dyna-PI architecture is based on dynamic programming's policy iteration method and can be related to existing AI ideas such as evaluation functions and universal plans (reactive systems). Using a navigation task, results are shown for a simple Dyna-PI system that simultaneously learns by trial and error, learns a world model, and plans optimal routes using the evolving world model. The Dyna-Q architecture is based on Watkins's Q-learning, a new kind of reinforcement learning. Dyna-Q uses a less familiar set of data structures than does Dyna-PI, but is arguably simpler to implement and use. We show that Dyna-Q architectures are easy to adapt for use in changing environments. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #4584. 	[Title] References elements that can solve difficult learning control problems. on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pages [Abstract] Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2):81-97. Schmidhuber, J. (1990b). Towards compositional learning with dynamic neural networks. Technical Report FKI-129-90, Technische Universitat Munchen, Institut fu Informatik. Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleermans, A., and McClelland, J. (1988). Encoding sequential structure in simple recurrent networks. Technical Report CMU-CS-88-183, Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #58540. 	[Title] Machine Learning,  Explanation-Based Learning and Reinforcement Learning: A Unified View [Abstract] In speedup-learning problems, where full descriptions of operators are known, both explanation-based learning (EBL) and reinforcement learning (RL) methods can be applied. This paper shows that both methods involve fundamentally the same process of propagating information backward from the goal toward the starting state. Most RL methods perform this propagation on a state-by-state basis, while EBL methods compute the weakest preconditions of operators, and hence, perform this propagation on a region-by-region basis. Barto, Bradtke, and Singh (1995) have observed that many algorithms for reinforcement learning can be viewed as asynchronous dynamic programming. Based on this observation, this paper shows how to develop dynamic programming versions of EBL, which we call region-based dynamic programming or Explanation-Based Reinforcement Learning (EBRL). The paper compares batch and online versions of EBRL to batch and online versions of point-based dynamic programming and to standard EBL. The results show that region-based dynamic programming combines the strengths of EBL (fast learning and the ability to scale to large state spaces) with the strengths of reinforcement learning algorithms (learning of optimal policies). Results are shown in chess endgames and in synthetic maze tasks. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #976334. 	[Title] Applying Online Search Techniques to Continuous-State Reinforcement Learning key to the success of the local [Abstract] In this paper, we describe methods for efficiently computing better solutions to control problems in continuous state spaces. We provide algorithms that exploit online search to boost the power of very approximate value functions discovered by traditional reinforcement learning techniques. We examine local searches, where the agent performs a finite-depth lookahead search, and global searches, where the agent performs a search for a trajectory all the way from the current state to a goal state. The key to the success of the global methods lies in using aggressive state-space search techniques such as uniform-cost search and A fl , tamed into a tractable form by exploiting neighborhood relations and trajectory constraints that arise from continuous-space dynamic control. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #114. 	[Title] Learning to Act using Real-Time Dynamic Programming [Abstract] fl The authors thank Rich Yee, Vijay Gullapalli, Brian Pinette, and Jonathan Bachrach for helping to clarify the relationships between heuristic search and control. We thank Rich Sutton, Chris Watkins, Paul Werbos, and Ron Williams for sharing their fundamental insights into this subject through numerous discussions, and we further thank Rich Sutton for first making us aware of Korf's research and for his very thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We are very grateful to Dimitri Bertsekas and Steven Sullivan for independently pointing out an error in an earlier version of this article. Finally, we thank Harry Klopf, whose insight and persistence encouraged our interest in this class of learning problems. This research was supported by grants to A.G. Barto from the National Science Foundation (ECS-8912623 and ECS-9214866) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Bolling AFB (AFOSR-89-0526). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #206259. 	[Title] Asynchronous Modified Policy Iteration with Single-sided Updates [Abstract] We present a new algorithm for solving Markov decision problems that extends the modified policy iteration algorithm of Puterman and Shin [6] in two important ways: 1) The new algorithm is asynchronous in that it allows the values of states to be updated in arbitrary order, and it does not need to consider all actions in each state while updating the policy. 2) The new algorithm converges under more general initial conditions than those required by modified policy iteration. Specifically, the set of initial policy-value function pairs for which our algorithm guarantees convergence is a strict superset of the set for which modified policy iteration converges. This generalization was obtained by making a simple and easily implementable change to the policy evaluation operator used in updating the value function. Both the asynchronous nature of our algorithm and its convergence under more general conditions expand the range of problems to which our algorithm can be applied. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #6196. 	[Title] The Parti-game Algorithm for Variable Resolution Reinforcement Learning in Multidimensional State-spaces [Abstract] Parti-game is a new algorithm for learning feasible trajectories to goal regions in high dimensional continuous state-spaces. In high dimensions it is essential that learning does not plan uniformly over a state-space. Parti-game maintains a decision-tree partitioning of state-space and applies techniques from game-theory and computational geometry to efficiently and adaptively concentrate high resolution only on critical areas. The current version of the algorithm is designed to find feasible paths or trajectories to goal regions in high dimensional spaces. Future versions will be designed to find a solution that optimizes a real-valued criterion. Many simulated problems have been tested, ranging from two-dimensional to nine-dimensional state-spaces, including mazes, path planning, non-linear dynamics, and planar snake robots in restricted spaces. In all cases, a good solution is found in less than ten trials and a few minutes. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #8213. 	[Title] Robust Reinforcement Learning in Motion Planning [Abstract] While exploring to find better solutions, an agent performing online reinforcement learning (RL) can perform worse than is acceptable. In some cases, exploration might have unsafe, or even catastrophic, results, often modeled in terms of reaching `failure' states of the agent's environment. This paper presents a method that uses domain knowledge to reduce the number of failures during exploration. This method formulates the set of actions from which the RL agent composes a control policy to ensure that exploration is conducted in a policy space that excludes most of the unacceptable policies. The resulting action set has a more abstract relationship to the task being solved than is common in many applications of RL. Although the cost of this added safety is that learning may result in a suboptimal solution, we argue that this is an appropriate tradeoff in many problems. We illustrate this method in the domain of motion planning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1120731. 	[Title] A Cognitive Model of Learning to Navigate [Abstract] Our goal is to develop a cognitive model of how humans acquire skills on complex cognitive tasks. We are pursuing this goal by designing computational architectures for the NRL Navigation task, which requires competent sensorimotor coordination. In this paper, we analyze the NRL Navigation task in depth. We then use data from experiments with human subjects learning this task to guide us in constructing a cognitive model of skill acquisition for the task. Verbal protocol data augments the black box view provided by execution traces of inputs and outputs. Computational experiments allow us to explore a space of alternative architectures for the task, guided by the quality of fit to human performance data. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #1153056 has the title `nan` and the abstract `Multigrid Q-Learning Charles W. Anderson and Stewart G. Crawford-Hines Technical Report CS-94-121 October 11, 1994 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1153056 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #1153056 has the title `nan` and the abstract `Multigrid Q-Learning Charles W. Anderson and Stewart G. Crawford-Hines Technical Report CS-94-121 October 11, 1994 
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #1153056 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Reinforcement_Learning