A Tensor Low-Rank Approximation for Value Functions in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning

Antonio G. Marques; Juan Andres Bazerque; Santiago Paternain; Sergio Rozada

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

A Tensor Low-Rank Approximation for Value Functions in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-rank tensor factorization of the multi-task Q-function yields faster learning with fewer samples in two tabular RL tasks.

desk verdict Plausible tensor low-rank multi-task idea, but the core update has a sign error that makes the printed algorithm divergent, so the experiments do not validate the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10529 v1 pith:ZJFE63L5 submitted 2025-01-17 cs.LG

Sergio Rozada , Santiago Paternain , Juan Andres Bazerque , Antonio G. Marques This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords multi-taskreinforcementlearninglow-ranktensorapproximationPARAFACdecompositionvaluefunctiontabularsampleefficiencyfactorizationQ-learning

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

The paper proposes to learn the state-action value functions of several related reinforcement-learning tasks at once by stacking them into a single tensor — one mode for states, one for actions, one for tasks — and forcing that tensor to have small PARAFAC rank. The claim is that this low-rank constraint encodes task similarity without anyone prescribing which tasks resemble which, and that a stochastic block-coordinate algorithm over the tensor factors lets every task borrow data from every other task. In two small tabular experiments, an inverted-pendulum family and a wireless transmission scheduling problem, the authors report faster convergence and higher early-training rewards than learning each task independently, while beating a baseline that forces all tasks to share one value function. If true, this gives a parameter-lean route to multi-task RL in data-scarce regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the third-order Q-tensor with PARAFAC structure, $\mathcal{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S|\times|A|\times M}$, whose rank-$K$ factorization $\mathcal{Q}(i_s,i_a,m)=\sum_k [\mathbf{Q}_1]_{i_s,k}[\mathbf{Q}_2]_{i_a,k}[\mathbf{Q}_3]_{m,k}$ collapses the degrees of freedom from $|S||A|M$ to $(|S|+|A|+M)K$. This factorization is the mechanism that turns multi-task sharing into a model: a transition sampled from any task updates the shared state and action factors, so information flows into every task's value function, while the task factor $\mathbf{Q}_3$ keeps the tasks distinct. The accompanying algorithm S-TLR-Q updates the three factor matrices with a block-coordinate stochastic step, treating the max over actions in the Bellman target as a fixed quantity, which is the standard semi-gradient maneuver in value-based RL.

What would settle it

Build a family of M related tabular tasks whose true Q-functions are known or estimable to high accuracy and whose joint Q-tensor has high PARAFAC rank; run S-TLR-Q at the paper's rank K and measure both the normalized tensor reconstruction error and the early-training return gap against independent per-task learning. If the reconstruction error is large and the early-training advantage over independent learning vanishes, the low-rank assumption is the mechanism and its stated benefit is confined to task families that satisfy it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a collection of tabular Q-functions can be modeled as a three-way tensor $\mathcal{Q}(i_s,i_a,m)$ and approximated by a low-rank PARAFAC form $\sum_{k=1}^{K}[\mathbf{Q}_1]_{i_s,k}[\mathbf{Q}_2]_{i_a,k}[\mathbf{Q}_3]_{m,k}$, where the three factor matrices are shared across states, actions, and tasks. Each task's Q-matrix becomes a weighted sum of $K$ common rank-one state-action layers, with the task's row of $\mathbf{Q}_3$ supplying the weights, so task similarity is inferred from data rather than imposed as a constraint. The authors derive block-coordinate stochastic semi-gradient updates for the factors, collect them in an algorithm they call S-TLR-Q, and report that it reaches the final performance of independent per-task Q-learning in both experiments while needing noticeably fewer samples; the fully shared baseline converges faster but settles at a worse solution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Q-functions of the M tasks really are close to a small-rank PARAFAC tensor; if related tasks fail to share a common low-rank latent structure, the compact factorization cannot represent the true value functions, and the reported sample-efficiency gains should disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the low-rank tensor model is correct, the parameter count for a multi-task problem drops from $|S||A|M$ to $(|S|+|A|+M)K$, so sample complexity should scale with the rank rather than with the full state-action-task grid.
Task similarity needs no explicit graph, clustering, or distance constraint; the factor matrices encode which tasks align in latent structure, and any transition from any task updates all tasks' value functions.
In data-scarce regimes, S-TLR-Q should dominate independent per-task learning on final accuracy and dominate fully shared learning whenever tasks differ in ways that are structurally aligned.
In the two tested environments, the same rank-$K$ representation achieves per-task final rewards comparable to independent learning while converging faster in the early stages of training.
Higher-order versions for multi-dimensional state and action vectors should yield even larger savings, because the rank-one outer-product form keeps the parameter count linear in the number of modes.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's tests, the factorization suggests a built-in transfer mechanism the authors do not exercise: hold out one task's Q-tensor slice, learn factors on the remaining tasks, and treat the fitted task rows as a basis for predicting the held-out task's value function; observing small prediction error would establish few-shot adaptation to a new related task.
The paper never validates the rank-$K$ assumption against true Q-values, so a natural diagnostic is to compute an oracle $Q^*$ on a family of small tabular tasks and plot normalized PARAFAC reconstruction error versus $K$; that curve would separate genuine multi-task structure from the bias of a compact model.
The same PARAFAC-sharing prior should apply to any multi-task regression with partially shared latent factors, making the method a general interpolation between full pooling and independent fits; this generalization is an inference from the mechanism, not a claim the paper states.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea is reasonable: stack the tabular Q-matrices of M tasks into a 3-way tensor and impose a PARAFAC low-rank structure, with one factor matrix for tasks. This is a natural extension of the authors' earlier low-rank RL work, and the writing is mostly clear. The update equations are a different story. For the squared TD loss in (5b), the semi-gradient in (6) has the wrong sign. Minimizing that loss requires updating parameters in the direction +2λ_m δ ∇Q, not −2λ_m δ ∇Q. Since Algorithm 1 subtracts the (6) quantities, the printed algorithm maximizes the squared TD error and should diverge. That is not a minor typo; it is in all three core equations and it means the experiments in Section IV, as described, do not support the claims. The code may well use the corrected sign, in which case this is a transcription error, but the paper as submitted is not reproducible.

Beyond the sign, the empirical support is thin: rank K, learning rates, and λ_m are never reported; the plots have no error bars; and the only baselines are the authors' own LR-Q and C-LR-Q. The low-rank assumption itself is never checked against true Q-values, so we do not know whether the claimed sample-efficiency gains come from the assumption or from something else. The paper also says the only hyperparameter is K, which is not true (η, ε, λ_m are all free). What the paper does well: the tensor model is simple and interpretable, the task-factor viewpoint is a sensible way to share information, and the two environments (pendulum, wireless) are at least different in flavor. But a plausible idea with a wrong sign in the core algorithm and missing experimental details is still a desk-reject level issue in its current form. If the authors correct the sign, report the hyperparameters, add error bars, and make the code available, this could be a modest but useful workshop paper. As it stands, I would not send it out for review; the central algorithm as written is internally inconsistent. For a reading group, it might be worth a quick look as a cautionary example of how sign errors in semi-gradient RL can slip through, but I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-task reinforcement learning method in which the Q-functions of M related tabular MDPs are stacked into a third-order tensor and approximated by a low-rank PARAFAC decomposition of rank K. The authors formulate a joint squared Bellman-error objective over the tensor factors, propose a stochastic semi-gradient block-coordinate algorithm called S-TLR-Q, and report two experiments (a four-task inverted-pendulum benchmark and a four-task wireless scheduling setup) comparing against independent and fully shared low-rank baselines. The central claim is that the low-rank tensor structure shares statistical strength across tasks, yielding faster learning and competitive final rewards compared with learning each task separately or forcing a single shared Q-function.

Significance. If the algorithm worked as claimed, the paper would offer a simple and interpretable way to exploit task relatedness in tabular multi-task RL: low-rank tensor factorization reduces the number of parameters from |S||A|M to (|S|+|A|+M)K and provides a latent representation of task similarity without explicit similarity constraints. The authors also provide a public code repository, which is a positive reproducibility feature. However, the current manuscript does not establish these claims: the core update equations are wrong as printed, the experiments omit essential hyperparameters and error bars, and the central low-rank assumption is never validated against true Q-values.

major comments (3)

[III, Eqs. (6a)-(6c) and (9a)-(9c)] The printed update direction is inconsistent with minimization of the objective in Eq. (5b). For a transition with TD error delta = r + gamma max_a Q(s',a,m) - Q(s,a,m), the loss contribution is (target - Q)^2, and its semi-gradient with respect to the factors is -2 lambda_m delta dQ/dtheta. Stochastic gradient descent therefore requires adding +2 lambda_m eta delta dQ/dtheta to the parameters. Equations (6a)-(6c) report the positive expression +2 lambda_m delta (...), and Algorithm 1 subtracts these quantities in Eqs. (9a)-(9c), giving an increment of -2 lambda_m eta delta (...). This is gradient ascent on the squared Bellman error and would be expected to diverge on any nontrivial problem. As submitted, the algorithm cannot be reproduced from the text, and the experiments in Section IV cannot be taken as validation of the proposed method; the equations need a sign correction and a consistent convention with Eq. (3).
[IV] The empirical evaluation is incomplete in load-bearing ways. The paper never reports the rank K, the task weights lambda_m, the learning-rate schedule eta(n), or the exploration probability epsilon used in the experiments, so the results in Fig. 2 cannot be reproduced or properly compared. The curves are averaged over 100 experiments, but no error bars, confidence intervals, or variance statistics are shown, and the claim that S-TLR-Q converges faster is not supported by a defined convergence criterion or a statistical test. These omissions are particularly important because the comparison is empirical and the baselines are only described by reference to the authors' earlier work [21].
[II-A and IV] The central modeling assumption, that the multi-task Q-tensor is well approximated by a small-rank PARAFAC decomposition, is never validated. Equation (7) presumes Q(i_s,i_a,m) is close to sum_k [Q1]_{i_s,k}[Q2]_{i_a,k}[Q3]_{m,k}, but no experiment compares the learned low-rank Q with ground-truth Q-values or reports the approximation error as a function of K. Without such evidence, the claimed sample-efficiency gains could be specific to the chosen benchmark tasks, and the suitability of the model for the wireless scenario remains unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[II, Eq. (5a)] In the tensor constraint, the factor [Q3]_{i1,k} should be [Q3]_{i3,k}; otherwise the decomposition does not index the task mode correctly.
[III, Algorithm 1] Line 8 says 'Update [Q(n+1)_m]m,:' but should update the task-factor matrix Q3; additionally, lines 7-8 refer to sigma_l^m where the surrounding loop uses sigma_t^m.
[II-B and IV] The text says that the only hyperparameter is the rank K, but eta(n), epsilon, and lambda_m are also hyperparameters that must be set; this statement should be corrected.
[IV, Fig. 2] The figure panels lack axis labels, and the text does not define whether the reported 'average return' is the discounted cumulative reward or the undiscounted sum over the test episode.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the low-rank Q-tensor model is a stated modeling assumption, and the reported gains are empirical comparisons on test episodes.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation takes the PARAFAC low-rank structure as a postulate, introduced in Eqs. (5a)-(5b) and Eq. (7), rather than as a consequence of the experiments. The algorithm then minimizes the squared TD loss over the factor matrices, and performance is measured by cumulative reward on test episodes after training, so the central claim does not reduce to the low-rank assumption by construction. The fact that the low-rank assumption is never validated against true Q-values is a modeling risk, not circularity. The paper cites the authors' own prior work ([20]-[22]) to motivate the pervasiveness of low rank and to implement the LR-Q and C-LR-Q baselines ([21]), but these citations are not load-bearing: the experiments are self-contained tabular benchmarks (inverted pendulum and wireless scheduling), and the baselines are natural ablations (independent versus fully shared representations) that the empirical comparison could in principle refute. The sign inconsistency in Eqs. (6a)-(6c) relative to minimizing the squared TD loss is an algebraic correctness issue, not a circularity. Accordingly, no step in the derivation is equivalent to its input by definition, and no prediction is a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's learning model depends on the rank K and several hyperparameters that are not reported. The dominant unverified premise is the low-rank structure of the multi-task Q-tensor; the paper supplies no evidence that real task families produce low-rank Q-tensors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Rank K = not reported
The rank of the Q-tensor controls the model's capacity and is the main hyperparameter; the paper does not state the values used in the experiments.
Learning rate schedule eta(n) = not reported
Algorithm 1 requires a schedule; no values or decay rules are given.
Exploration probability epsilon = not reported
Epsilon-greedy exploration is used in Algorithm 1, but epsilon is unspecified.
Task weights lambda_m = not reported
Loss (5) weights tasks by lambda_m; no values are given.
State and action discretization for the pendulum = not reported
The pendulum has continuous state and action; the tabular Q-tensor requires discretization, but bin sizes are not described.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Q-functions of the M related tasks are well approximated by a PARAFAC tensor of rank K.
This is the core modeling assumption, introduced in Section II.A and Eq. (5a); it is never validated against true Q-values.
domain assumption Related tasks share common state and action spaces and a common discount factor.
Section II assumes all MDPs share S, A, and gamma; real multi-task settings may violate this.
domain assumption Semi-gradient descent on the nonconvex low-rank objective converges to a useful solution.
Section III adopts a semi-gradient scheme with a max operator; no convergence guarantees are given for the nonconvex tensor problem.
standard math Monte Carlo sampling of transitions gives unbiased stochastic gradients.
The stochastic updates in (6) replace expected TD gradients by single-transition samples; this is standard but unstated.
standard math Low-rank tensor decomposition is computationally tractable and gradients can be computed.
Invoked in Section I motivation (ii); standard PARAFAC algebra, not proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Tensor Low-Rank Approximation for Value Functions in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJFE63L5

@misc{pith2026250110529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Tensor Low-Rank Approximation for Value Functions in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJFE63L5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10529}
}

read the original abstract

In pursuit of reinforcement learning systems that could train in physical environments, we investigate multi-task approaches as a means to alleviate the need for massive data acquisition. In a tabular scenario where the Q-functions are collected across tasks, we model our learning problem as optimizing a higher order tensor structure. Recognizing that close-related tasks may require similar actions, our proposed method imposes a low-rank condition on this aggregated Q-tensor. The rationale behind this approach to multi-task learning is that the low-rank structure enforces the notion of similarity, without the need to explicitly prescribe which tasks are similar, but inferring this information from a reduced amount of data simultaneously with the stochastic optimization of the Q-tensor. The efficiency of our low-rank tensor approach to multi-task learning is demonstrated in two numerical experiments, first in a benchmark environment formed by a collection of inverted pendulums, and then into a practical scenario involving multiple wireless communication devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10529 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Performance of S-TLR-Q in (a) the pendulum problem and (b) the wireless setup, measured in terms of average return over 100 experiments. S-TLR-Q requires fewer samples to converge than LR-Q and achieves higher returns than C-LR-Q consistently across all tasks. REFERENCES [1] J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al., “Gpt-4 technica… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[21]

Tensor and matrix low- rank value-function approximation in reinforcement learning,

S. Rozada, S. Paternain, and A. G. Marques, “Tensor and matrix low- rank value-function approximation in reinforcement learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Gpt-4 technical report,

J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

Meta-learning,

J. Vanschoren, “Meta-learning,” in Automated Machine Learning , pp. 35–61, Springer, Cham, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,

T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey, “Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05439 , 2020

arXiv 2004
[4]

Probabilistic model-agnostic meta- learning,

C. Finn, K. Xu, and S. Levine, “Probabilistic model-agnostic meta- learning,” Advances in Neural Info. Process. Syst. , vol. 31, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Efficient off- policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables,

K. Rakelly, A. Zhou, C. Finn, S. Levine, and D. Quillen, “Efficient off- policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables,” in Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML) , pp. 5331–5340, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Multitask learning,

R. Caruana, “Multitask learning,” Machine learning , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 41–75, 1997

1997
[7]

An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks,

S. Ruder, “An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05098 , 2017

arXiv 2017

Show all 31 references

[8]

A survey on multi-task learning,

Y . Zhang and Q. Yang, “A survey on multi-task learning,” IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng. , 2021

2021
[9]

Multi- task reinforcement learning in reproducing kernel hilbert spaces via cross-learning,

J. Cervino, J. A. Bazerque, M. Calvo-Fullana, and A. Ribeiro, “Multi- task reinforcement learning in reproducing kernel hilbert spaces via cross-learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Proc., vol. 69, pp. 5947–5962, 2021

2021
[10]

Multi- task supervised learning via cross-learning,

J. Cervino, J. A. Bazerque, M. Calvo-Fullana, and A. Ribeiro, “Multi- task supervised learning via cross-learning,” in European Signal Process. Conf. (EUSIPCO), pp. 1381–1385, IEEE, 2021

2021
[11]

Multi-task learning via conic programming,

T. Kato, H. Kashima, M. Sugiyama, and K. Asai, “Multi-task learning via conic programming,” in Advances in Neural Info. Process. Syst. , pp. 737–744, 2008

2008
[12]

Conic programming for multitask learning,

T. Kato, H. Kashima, M. Sugiyama, and K. Asai, “Conic programming for multitask learning,” IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng. , vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 957–968, 2009

2009
[13]

Proximity without consensus in online multiagent optimization,

A. Koppel, B. M. Sadler, and A. Ribeiro, “Proximity without consensus in online multiagent optimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 3062–3077, 2017

2017
[14]

Parsimonious online learning with kernels via sparse projections in function space,

A. Koppel, G. Warnell, E. Stump, and A. Ribeiro, “Parsimonious online learning with kernels via sparse projections in function space,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 83–126, 2019

2019
[15]

Learning to multi-task by active sampling,

S. Sharma, A. Jha, P. Hegde, and B. Ravindran, “Learning to multi-task by active sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06053 , 2017

2017 arXiv
[16]

Multi-task learning as multi-objective opti- mization,

O. Sener and V . Koltun, “Multi-task learning as multi-objective opti- mization,” in Int. Conf. Machine Learning , pp. 525–536, 2018

2018
[17]

Regularized multi–task learning,

T. Evgeniou and M. Pontil, “Regularized multi–task learning,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 109–117, 2004

2004
[18]

A convex formulation for learning task relationships in multi-task learning,

Y . Zhang and D. Y . Yeung, “A convex formulation for learning task relationships in multi-task learning,” in Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intell., UAI 2010 , p. 733, 2010

2010
[19]

Transfer learning,

L. Torrey and J. Shavlik, “Transfer learning,” in Handbook of research on machine learning applications and trends: algorithms, methods, and techniques, pp. 242–264, IGI global, 2010

2010
[20]

Matrix low-rank approximation for policy gradient methods,

S. Rozada and A. G. Marques, “Matrix low-rank approximation for policy gradient methods,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. Acoust., Speech and Signal Process. (ICASSP), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2023

2023
[22]

Tensor low-rank approximation of finite- horizon value functions,

S. Rozada and A. G. Marques, “Tensor low-rank approximation of finite- horizon value functions,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. Acoust., Speech and Signal Process. (ICASSP), pp. 5975–5979, IEEE, 2024

2024
[23]

Q-learning,

C. J. Watkins and P. Dayan, “Q-learning,” Machine learning , vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 279–292, 1992

1992
[24]

Linear least-squares algorithms for temporal difference learning,

S. J. Bradtke and A. G. Barto, “Linear least-squares algorithms for temporal difference learning,”Machine learning, vol. 22, no. 1-3, pp. 33– 57, 1996

1996
[25]

Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al. , “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015

2015
[26]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[27]

Playing Atari with deep reinforcement learn- ing,

V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wier- stra, and M. Riedmiller, “Playing Atari with deep reinforcement learn- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602 , 2013

2013 arXiv
[28]

Tensor decomposition for signal processing and machine learning,

N. D. Sidiropoulos, L. De Lathauwer, X. Fu, K. Huang, E. E. Papalex- akis, and C. Faloutsos, “Tensor decomposition for signal processing and machine learning,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing , vol. 65, no. 13, pp. 3551–3582, 2017

2017
[29]

Algorithmic survey of parametric value function approximation,

M. Geist and O. Pietquin, “Algorithmic survey of parametric value function approximation,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 845–867, 2013

2013
[30]

OpenAI Gym,

G. Brockman, V . Cheung, L. Pettersson, J. Schneider, J. Schul- man, J. Tang, and W. Zaremba, “OpenAI Gym,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540, 2016

2016 arXiv
[31]

A tensor low-rank approximation for value functions in multi-task reinforcement learning

S. Rozada, “A tensor low-rank approximation for value functions in multi-task reinforcement learning.” https://github.com/sergiorozada12/ multi-task-lrrl, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Tensor and matrix low- rank value-function approximation in reinforcement learning,

S. Rozada, S. Paternain, and A. G. Marques, “Tensor and matrix low- rank value-function approximation in reinforcement learning,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Gpt-4 technical report,

J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

Meta-learning,

J. Vanschoren, “Meta-learning,” in Automated Machine Learning , pp. 35–61, Springer, Cham, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [3]

Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,

T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey, “Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05439 , 2020

arXiv 2004

[5] [4]

Probabilistic model-agnostic meta- learning,

C. Finn, K. Xu, and S. Levine, “Probabilistic model-agnostic meta- learning,” Advances in Neural Info. Process. Syst. , vol. 31, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [5]

Efficient off- policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables,

K. Rakelly, A. Zhou, C. Finn, S. Levine, and D. Quillen, “Efficient off- policy meta-reinforcement learning via probabilistic context variables,” in Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning (ICML) , pp. 5331–5340, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [6]

Multitask learning,

R. Caruana, “Multitask learning,” Machine learning , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 41–75, 1997

1997

[8] [7]

An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks,

S. Ruder, “An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05098 , 2017

arXiv 2017