Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Promise of Data-Driven Modeling and Decision Support for Precision Oncology and Theranostics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that combining Neural ODEs with PBPK models gives reinforcement learning a simulated training ground for patient-specific radiopharmaceutical dosing.

desk verdict A creditable survey of RPT decision support, but the proposed framework's training equations are internally inconsistent and need major revision before the research agenda can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09899 v1 pith:MCCEH4BT submitted 2025-05-15 cs.CE

Binesh Sadanandan , Vahid Behzadan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords theranosticsradiopharmaceuticaltherapyprecisiononcologyphysiologicallybasedpharmacokineticmodelsneuralordinarydifferentialequationsphysics-informednetworksreinforcementlearningpersonalizeddosimetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the path to personalized radiopharmaceutical therapy runs through combining data-driven modeling with reinforcement learning. It proposes a framework in which Neural Ordinary Differential Equations and physics-informed constraints upgrade Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic models into patient-specific simulators, and a reinforcement learning agent uses those simulators to learn dosing policies that balance tumor control against radiation exposure to healthy organs. The contribution is a prospective architecture and a research agenda, not a validated system: no experiments, clinical data, or trained policies are reported. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as setting out what must be built and which design choices are worth testing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Neural ODE-augmented PBPK model used as the transition model of a Markov Decision Process. A Neural ODE is a neural network that represents the time derivative of a state vector, here the drug concentrations $P$, $L$, $K$ in plasma, liver, and kidneys, trained against the ODE system of compartmental mass transport and a physics-based loss that enforces conservation of total administered dose. The paper discretizes time, randomly initializes the network parameters, and optimizes them until the predicted concentrations match the PBPK dynamics; this learned dynamics then supplies the transition probabilities for a reinforcement learning agent whose actions are dosing decisions. The MDP's state and reward structure (time-integrated activity, absorbed doses, tumor control reward, organ-at-risk penalty) is what turns dosimetry into a sequential decision problem.

What would settle it

Train the proposed Neural ODE on outputs of the PBPK simulator and test it against measured time-activity curves from a cohort of Lu-177-DOTATATE or Lu-177-PSMA patients. If predicted organ and tumor absorbed doses deviate from clinically measured dosimetry by more than the tolerance used for treatment planning (typically 10–20%), the sim-to-real premise fails and the framework's policies cannot be trusted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a Markov Decision Process whose transition probabilities are supplied by a Neural ODE-enhanced PBPK model of plasma, liver, and kidney compartments can support reinforcement learning of optimal radiopharmaceutical dosing policies. The state is defined by time-integrated activity and absorbed doses in tumor and organs at risk, actions are dosing regimens, and the reward function encodes both tumor control and organ-at-risk safety. The authors propose to train this system offline on data generated by a reaction-graph PBPK simulator, then refine it online as patient imaging data arrive. The paper is explicit that this is a proposal; the discovery, if it is one, is that the components exist and can be assembled this way.

Load-bearing premise

A neural network trained on computer-simulated pharmacokinetic data is assumed to predict how real patients will distribute a radiopharmaceutical closely enough that dosing policies learned from the simulator are safe to use in the clinic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Neural ODEs reproduce PBPK dynamics from simulated data, reinforcement learning policies can be trained entirely in silico before any patient exposure, so the first clinical use is a fine-tuning step rather than an exploration step.
  • The MDP formulation converts clinical imaging measurements (time-integrated activity and absorbed doses) directly into decision variables, giving dosimetry a formal role in treatment policy rather than an after-the-fact check.
  • Because the reward function separates tumor control from organ-at-risk dose, the approach makes the dose-safety trade-off explicit and tunable for each patient.
  • The physics-informed loss term could reduce the amount of patient-specific data needed to fit the dynamics, because the model is constrained to conserve administered dose instead of learning that from scratch.
  • Offline training on historical and simulated cases followed by online refinement maps naturally onto the way theranostic cycles accumulate imaging data, so policies can improve cycle by cycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test sim-to-real transfer; the natural next experiment is to fit the proposed Neural ODE on simulator outputs and compare its absorbed-dose predictions against measured time-activity curves from Lu-177-DOTATATE or Lu-177-PSMA patients before any reinforcement learning training.
  • The same Neural-ODE-as-transition-model pattern could be transplanted to other sequential oncology decisions, such as chemotherapy scheduling or adaptive radiotherapy, wherever a differentiable compartment model exists.
  • If the learned transition model is imperfect, offline reinforcement learning methods with conservative policy constraints would be a safer training choice than unconstrained DQN or DDPG, since the agent would avoid overestimating states it has never seen.
  • A quantitative test of the framework's value would be an in silico comparison between the reinforcement-learning-optimized policy and standard fixed dosing on the simulator's ground-truth outcomes, measuring the difference in tumor control probability per unit organ-at-risk dose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews challenges and current practices in radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) and theranostics, and proposes a data-driven decision-support framework that combines Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (Neural ODEs) and Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) with Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models, integrated with reinforcement learning (RL) for personalized dosing. Sections II and III survey dosimetry methods and open problems; Section IV presents a PBPK model with three compartments and defines a training loss; Section V formalizes an MDP and outlines RL-based policy optimization. The manuscript contains no implementation, simulation results, or patient data; it is a framework proposal with a literature review.

Significance. The topic is timely and clinically relevant, and the review of RPT dosimetry and PBPK modeling is useful for readers entering the field. If the proposed framework were made technically sound and validated on synthetic or clinical data, it could contribute to precision oncology decision support. However, the paper currently offers only a conceptual outline with no demonstrated feasibility. The training objective in Section IV is internally inconsistent, and the MDP transition model is underspecified, so the central promise of optimized, patient-specific dosing is not supported as written. The survey component has merit, but the proposal's technical foundations need substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (5) and (6)]
  2. [Section V.A and Algorithm 2]
  3. [General (Sections IV-V)]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 2]
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (1)]
  3. [Section IV, Abstract and Introduction]
  4. [Section V.A]
  5. [Throughout]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a framework proposal with no fitted constants, no empirical predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper proposes a framework that integrates Neural ODEs and Physics-Informed Neural Networks with PBPK models and reinforcement learning for radiopharmaceutical dosing; it reports no fitted parameters, no predictions of patient outcomes, and no derivation that converts an input into a claimed output. Equation 5 minimizes the residual between dC_NN/dt and the learned function f(t, C_NN, theta), which is a self-consistency constraint between the network trajectory and its own dynamics function, while Eq. 6 is a mass-conservation penalty; neither is presented as a prediction checked against data or against the PBPK simulator of reference [14]. Even if the training objective, as a matter of correctness, does not supervise against simulator trajectories and appears inconsistent with Eqs. 2-4 regarding total mass decay in the presence of metabolism and excretion, that is an under-specification or well-posedness concern rather than circularity: the paper does not claim that these losses themselves constitute an empirical result derived from inputs. The cited foundations (PBPK simulator [14], theranostic digital twins [18], Neural ODEs [31]) are external works by other author groups, so no self-citation chain carries the argument. The central contribution is a proposal for future research, and its plausibility depends on external benchmarks and simulator-based validation that have not yet been performed; that absence of validation is not a circular dependence. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three substantive assumptions: the adequacy of the compartmental ODE model, the fidelity of the cited PBPK simulator, and the suitability of the MDP formulation. No free parameters are fitted in the paper, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Compartmental first-order linear kinetics in Eqs. (2)-(4) represent radiopharmaceutical distribution
    The PBPK model reduces to three compartments with constant rate coefficients, ignoring saturable binding and nonlinear effects that the cited simulator [14] can capture.
  • domain assumption The PBPK simulator by Fele-Paranj et al. [14] generates ground-truth data adequate for training Neural ODEs
    The framework's training relies on this simulator's fidelity; no validation of sim-to-real transfer is provided.
  • domain assumption An MDP with state variables TIA and absorbed doses adequately captures the treatment planning problem
    The proposal assumes these state variables and the reward function produce an optimal clinical policy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Promise of Data-Driven Modeling and Decision Support for Precision Oncology and Theranostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCCEH4BT

@misc{pith2026250509899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Promise of Data-Driven Modeling and Decision Support for Precision Oncology and Theranostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCCEH4BT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09899}
}
read the original abstract

Cancer remains a leading cause of death worldwide, necessitating personalized treatment approaches to improve outcomes. Theranostics, combining molecular-level imaging with targeted therapy, offers potential for precision oncology but requires optimized, patient-specific care plans. This paper investigates state-of-the-art data-driven decision support applications with a reinforcement learning focus in precision oncology. We review current applications, training environments, state-space representation, performance evaluation criteria, and measurement of risk and reward, highlighting key challenges. We propose a framework integrating data-driven modeling with reinforcement learning-based decision support to optimize radiopharmaceutical therapy dosing, addressing identified challenges and setting directions for future research. The framework leverages Neural Ordinary Differential Equations and Physics-Informed Neural Networks to enhance Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic models while applying reinforcement learning algorithms to iteratively refine treatment policies based on patient-specific data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Fele-Paranj, B

    A. Fele-Paranj, B. Saboury, C. Uribe, and A. Rahmim, “Physiologically based radiopharmacokinetic (pbrpk) modeling to simulate and analyze radio- pharmaceutical therapies: studies of non-linearities, multi-bolus injections, and albumin binding,”EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 6, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,

    F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,”CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Precision medicine—personalized, prob- lematic, and promising,

    J. L. Jameson and D. L. Longo, “Precision medicine—personalized, prob- lematic, and promising,”Obstetrical & gynecological survey, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 612–614, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    A 2022 international survey on the status of prostate cancer theranostics,

    T. Beyer, J. Czernin, L. Freudenberg, F. Giesel, M. Hacker, R. J. Hicks, and B. J. Krause, “A 2022 international survey on the status of prostate cancer theranostics,”Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 47–53, 2023

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Patient out- comes following a response biomarker-guided approach to treatment us- ing 177lu-psma-i&t in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate can- cer (re-spect),

    L. Emmett, N. John, S. Pathmanandavel, W. Counter, M. Ayers, S. Sharma, S. Agrawal, A. Poole, E. Hovey, G. Pranavanet al., “Patient out- comes following a response biomarker-guided approach to treatment us- ing 177lu-psma-i&t in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate can- cer (re-spect),”Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, vol. 15, p. 17588...

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    The application of deep learning in cancer prognosis prediction,

    W. Zhu, L. Xie, J. Han, and X. Guo, “The application of deep learning in cancer prognosis prediction,”Cancers, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 603, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Cancer diagnosis using deep learning: a bibliographic review,

    K. Munir, H. Elahi, A. Ayub, F. Frezza, and A. Rizzi, “Cancer diagnosis using deep learning: a bibliographic review,”Cancers, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1235, 2019

    2019

  8. [7]

    Lapan,Deep Reinforcement Learning Hands-On: Apply modern RL methods, with deep Q-networks, value iteration, policy gradients, TRPO, AlphaGo Zero and more

    M. Lapan,Deep Reinforcement Learning Hands-On: Apply modern RL methods, with deep Q-networks, value iteration, policy gradients, TRPO, AlphaGo Zero and more. Packt Publishing Ltd, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Deep rein- forcement learning framework for autonomous driving,

    A. E. Sallab, M. Abdou, E. Perot, and S. Yogamani, “Deep rein- forcement learning framework for autonomous driving,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02532, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Radiopharma- ceutical therapy in cancer: clinical advances and challenges,

    G. Sgouros, L. Bodei, M. R. McDevitt, and J. R. Nedrow, “Radiopharma- ceutical therapy in cancer: clinical advances and challenges,”Nature reviews Drug discovery, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 589–608, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Radiopharmaceutical dosimetry in targeted radionuclide therapy,

    E. M. Ramirez, “Radiopharmaceutical dosimetry in targeted radionuclide therapy,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universit ´e Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III, 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy: current practices and commercial resources,

    J. Capala, S. A. Graves, A. Scott, G. Sgouros, S. S. James, P. Zanzonico, and B. E. Zimmerman, “Dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy: current practices and commercial resources,”Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 62, no. Supplement 3, pp. 3S–11S, 2021. 4

    2021

  5. [12]

    A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (pbpk) model to describe organ distribution of 68ga-dotatate in patients without neuroendocrine tumors,

    H. Siebinga, B. de Wit-van der Veen, J. Beijnen, M. Stokkel, T. Dorlo, A. Huitema, and J. Hendrikx, “A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (pbpk) model to describe organ distribution of 68ga-dotatate in patients without neuroendocrine tumors,”EJNMMI research, vol. 11, no. 1,...

    2021

  6. [13]

    Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (pbpk) model for biodistribution of radiolabeled peptides in patients with neuroendocrine tumours,

    R. Gospavic, P. Knoll, S. Mirzaei, and V . Popov, “Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (pbpk) model for biodistribution of radiolabeled peptides in patients with neuroendocrine tumours,”Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 90, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Effect of tumor perfusion and receptor density on tumor control probability in 177lu-dotatate therapy: an in silico analysis for standard and optimized treatment,

    L. D. Jim ´enez-Franco, G. Glatting, V . Prasad, W. A. Weber, A. J. Beer, and P. Kletting, “Effect of tumor perfusion and receptor density on tumor control probability in 177lu-dotatate therapy: an in silico analysis for standard and optimized treatment,”Journal of Nuclear Med...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Optimized peptide amount and activity for 90y-labeled dotatate therapy,

    P. Kletting, T. Kull, C. Maaß, N. Malik, M. Luster, A. J. Beer, and G. Glatting, “Optimized peptide amount and activity for 90y-labeled dotatate therapy,”Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 503–508, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Modeling and predicting tumor response in radioligand therapy,

    P. Kletting, A. Thieme, N. Eberhardt, A. Rinscheid, C. D’Alessandria, J. Allmann, H.-J. Wester, R. Tauber, A. J. Beer, G. Glattinget al., “Modeling and predicting tumor response in radioligand therapy,”Journal of nuclear medicine, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 65–70, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Theranostic digital twins for personalized radiopharmaceutical therapies: Reimagining theranostics via computational nuclear oncology,

    A. Rahmim, J. Brosch-Lenz, A. Fele-Paranj, F. Yousefirizi, M. Soltani, C. Uribe, and B. Saboury, “Theranostic digital twins for personalized radiopharmaceutical therapies: Reimagining theranostics via computational nuclear oncology,”Frontiers in oncology, vol. 12, p. 1062592, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: an overview,

    A. Dash, S. Chakraborty, M. R. A. Pillai, and F. F. Knapp Jr, “Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: an overview,”Cancer Biotherapy and Radio- pharmaceuticals, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 47–71, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy,

    G. Sgouros and R. F. Hobbs, “Dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy,” inSeminars in nuclear medicine, vol. 44, no. 3. Elsevier, 2014, pp. 172– 178

    2014

  13. [21]

    Personalized [177lu] lutetium-psma therapy for patients with pre-treated castration-resistant prostate cancer: A single institution experience from a comprehensive cancer centre,

    W. Thaiss, F. Zengerling, J. Friedrich, V . Hechler, M. Grunert, C. Bolenz, T. Wiegel, A. J. Beer, and V . Prasad, “Personalized [177lu] lutetium-psma therapy for patients with pre-treated castration-resistant prostate cancer: A single institution experience from a comprehensi...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Future directions for precision oncology in prostate cancer,

    K. Mizuno and H. Beltran, “Future directions for precision oncology in prostate cancer,”The Prostate, vol. 82, pp. S86–S96, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Personalized medicine: motivation, chal- lenges, and progress,

    L. H. Goetz and N. J. Schork, “Personalized medicine: motivation, chal- lenges, and progress,”Fertility and sterility, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 952–963, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Nuclear medicine without nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment

    D. Updegraff and S. A. Hoedl, “Nuclear medicine without nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    V oxel-based dosimetry of iron oxide nanoparticles based 177 lu-labeled folate conjugates targeted spect/ct imaging of mice,

    A. Gupta, “V oxel-based dosimetry of iron oxide nanoparticles based 177 lu-labeled folate conjugates targeted spect/ct imaging of mice,” 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Re-thinking the role of radiometal isotopes: Towards a future concept for theranostic radiopharmaceuticals,

    J. Notni and H.-J. Wester, “Re-thinking the role of radiometal isotopes: Towards a future concept for theranostic radiopharmaceuticals,”Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 141– 153, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Smart sensors and microtechnologies in the precision medicine approach against lung cancer,

    G. M. Stella, S. Lettieri, D. Piloni, I. Ferrarotti, F. Perrotta, A. G. Corsico, and C. Bortolotto, “Smart sensors and microtechnologies in the precision medicine approach against lung cancer,”Pharmaceuticals, vol. 16, no. 7, p. 1042, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Clinical application of pharmacogenetics,

    B. B. Spear, M. Heath-Chiozzi, and J. Huff, “Clinical application of pharmacogenetics,”Trends in molecular medicine, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 201–204, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Monte carlo treatment planning for photon and electron beams,

    N. Reynaert, S. Van der Marck, D. Schaart, W. Van der Zee, C. Van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, M. Tomsej, J. Jansen, B. Heijmen, M. Coghe, and C. De Wagter, “Monte carlo treatment planning for photon and electron beams,”Radiation Physics and Chemistry, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 643–686, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Dosimetry-based treatment planning for molecular radiotherapy: a summary of the 2017 report from the internal dosimetry task force,

    C. Stokke, P. M. Gabi ˜na, P. Soln`y, F. Cicone, M. Sandstr ¨om, K. S. Gleisner, C. Chiesa, E. Spezi, M. Paphiti, M. Konijnenberget al., “Dosimetry-based treatment planning for molecular radiotherapy: a summary of the 2017 report from the internal dosimetry task force,”EJNMMI ...

    2017

  23. [31]

    Machine learning and artificial intelligence in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling,

    W.-C. Chou and Z. Lin, “Machine learning and artificial intelligence in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling,”Toxicological Sciences, vol. 191, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Treatment policy learning in multiobjective settings with fully observed outcomes,

    S. Boominathan, M. Oberst, H. Zhou, S. Kanjilal, and D. Sontag, “Treatment policy learning in multiobjective settings with fully observed outcomes,” inProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2020, pp. 1937–1947

    2020

  25. [33]

    M. L. Neal, A. D. Trister, S. Ahn, A. Baldock, C. A. Bridge, L. Guyman, J. Lange, R. Sodt, T. Cloke, A. Laiet al., “Response classification based on a minimal model of glioblastoma growth is prognostic for clinical outcomes and distinguishes progression from pseudoprogressiona...

    2013

  26. [34]

    Challenges of real-world reinforcement learning: definitions, benchmarks and analysis,

    G. Dulac-Arnold, N. Levine, D. J. Mankowitz, J. Li, C. Paduraru, S. Gowal, and T. Hester, “Challenges of real-world reinforcement learning: definitions, benchmarks and analysis,”Machine Learning, vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 2419– 2468, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Optimizing agent behavior over long time scales by transporting value,

    C.-C. Hung, T. Lillicrap, J. Abramson, Y . Wu, M. Mirza, F. Carnevale, A. Ahuja, and G. Wayne, “Optimizing agent behavior over long time scales by transporting value,”Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Learn what not to learn: Action elimination with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. Zahavy, M. Haroush, N. Merlis, D. J. Mankowitz, and S. Mannor, “Learn what not to learn: Action elimination with deep reinforcement learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Altman,Constrained Markov decision processes: stochastic modeling

    E. Altman,Constrained Markov decision processes: stochastic modeling. Routledge, 1999

    1999

  30. [38]

    Measuring the reliability of reinforcement learning algorithms,

    S. C. Chan, S. Fishman, J. Canny, A. Korattikara, and S. Guadarrama, “Measuring the reliability of reinforcement learning algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.05663, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Deep reinforcement learning at the edge of the statistical precipice,

    R. Agarwal, M. Schwarzer, P. S. Castro, A. C. Courville, and M. Bellemare, “Deep reinforcement learning at the edge of the statistical precipice,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 29 304– 29 320, 2021. 5

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.