REVIEW 2 cited by
Deep reinforcement learning with time-scale invariant memory
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The ability to estimate temporal relationships is critical for both animals and artificial agents. Cognitive science and neuroscience provide remarkable insights into behavioral and neural aspects of temporal credit assignment. In particular, scale invariance of learning dynamics, observed in behavior and supported by neural data, is one of the key principles that governs animal perception: proportional rescaling of temporal relationships does not alter the overall learning efficiency. Here we integrate a computational neuroscience model of scale invariant memory into deep reinforcement learning (RL) agents. We first provide a theoretical analysis and then demonstrate through experiments that such agents can learn robustly across a wide range of temporal scales, unlike agents built with commonly used recurrent memory architectures such as LSTM. This result illustrates that incorporating computational principles from neuroscience and cognitive science into deep neural networks can enhance adaptability to complex temporal dynamics, mirroring some of the core properties of human learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Dynamical Priors as a Training Objective in Reinforcement Learning
DP-RL augments RL policy gradients with auxiliary losses from dynamical priors to enforce temporally structured decision trajectories that depend on task-specific evidence accumulation and hysteresis.
-
Prediction Is Not Memory: Dual-Timescale Gated Profile Writing for Persistent User Modeling
A lightweight write-risk gate reduces harmful persistent-profile updates from 22.45% to about 14.5% on MicroLens-100K, and next-item ranking confidence is a poor substitute for write-risk scoring.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.