Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Reinforcement Learning Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reinforcement learning is ready to automate far-sighted decisions across industries.

desk verdict A serviceable survey of RL applications whose framing overreaches by counting contextual bandits and MPC as RL, worth a quick skim for the bibliography but not a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06973 v1 pith:55A4E2XT submitted 2019-08-19 cs.LG cs.AI

Yuxi Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords reinforcementlearningdeepRLsequentialdecisionmakingapplicationssurveyrecommendersystemsroboticshealthcaretransportation
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 reinforcement learning is a general decision-making paradigm that is especially valuable for tasks requiring sequences of decisions, because it optimizes cumulative long-term reward rather than immediate gains. It surveys successful applications in recommender systems, computer systems, energy, finance, healthcare, robotics, and transportation, and provides a practical recipe for applying RL: formulate the problem, prepare data, engineer features, choose a representation, select an algorithm, experiment, and deploy. The value of the survey, if accurate, is to show that many manually designed strategies can in principle be automated and optimized by RL, and to give practitioners a structured path for trying it.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Markov decision process (MDP) formulation: an agent observes a state, selects an action, receives a scalar reward, and transitions to a next state, with the goal of maximizing expected discounted cumulative reward. The paper emphasizes that RL methods like Q-learning and policy gradients work without a model of the environment, and that a learned optimal value function encodes global, far-sighted information. This machinery lets RL improve strategies in problem domains as varied as news recommendation, device placement, data-center cooling, option pricing, sepsis treatment, robot manipulation, and order dispatching.

What would settle it

A single careful re-evaluation of a cited deployment—for instance, an A/B test comparing a deployed RL recommender against the non-RL baseline it claimed to beat, with the same data and metrics—that fails to show the reported gain would undermine the survey's case that RL reliably delivers real-world value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that RL is a general, far-sighted, and promising decision-making paradigm, and that any task convertible into a sequential decision-making problem with definable states, actions, and rewards is a candidate for RL automation. The author asserts that RL has achieved major successes in games and in real products, and that the time for RL is coming: RL will play increasingly important roles in real-life applications, with both deep learning and RL prospering. The supporting evidence is a curated set of application case studies, each presented as an RL formulation with states, actions, rewards, and reported performance gains.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the performance numbers and qualitative conclusions it repeats from the cited industry papers are accurate, since it does not independently verify any of them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any manually designed policy for a sequential task with measurable outcomes can in principle be replaced or improved by an RL agent trained on sufficient data or a high-fidelity simulator.
  • RL's long-term view can beat one-shot, myopic supervised learning in tasks where immediate reward is a misleading guide, as shown by the shortest-path example.
  • Off-policy learning and counterfactual policy evaluation make it feasible to train and validate RL policies on logged data, which is crucial for healthcare and other fields where online exploration is risky.
  • Deploying RL in production is practical today: open-source platforms and end-to-end pipelines exist for recommender systems, cloud resource management, and notification delivery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the survey's evidence is representative, the limiting factor for RL adoption is not the algorithm but the availability of data and a reliable simulator; tasks without either will remain out of reach.
  • The survey's implicit claim that RL generalizes across such diverse domains suggests a testable hypothesis: a single family of algorithms (e.g., Q-learning variants) should reach competitive performance on a broad benchmark of sequential decision tasks drawn from several industries.
  • The reported performance gains are vendor- or team-reported and may not replicate under independent evaluation; a systematic, third-party replication study of the cited deployments would clarify how much of the claimed value is real.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey-style draft chapter on reinforcement learning applications. It opens with an introduction to RL concepts, a shortest-path example, a discussion of practical issues, a workflow for using RL, and study resources in Section 1. It then reviews selected applications in recommender systems (Section 2), computer systems (Section 3), energy (Section 4), finance (Section 5), healthcare (Section 6), robotics (Section 7), and transportation (Section 8). The paper's central claim is stated in Section 1.10: RL is a general, sequential, far-sighted decision-making paradigm, and there is a chance for RL to automate and optimize manually designed strategies in many tasks.

Significance. The survey is broad and clearly organized, with useful annotated bibliographies. It explicitly names important practical obstacles, such as the deadly triad, sample efficiency, reward misspecification, and off-policy evaluation, which helps a non-specialist reader calibrate expectations. It also collects several recent industrial case studies, including Horizon, Decision Service, Park, and AlphaGo Zero, and it points to open-source platforms and study resources. However, the manuscript offers no new technical results, no independent verification of the reported performance numbers, and no reproducibility artifacts. The most significant concern is taxonomical: some of the featured 'RL applications' are contextual bandits or model-predictive control, which the paper itself distinguishes from RL in Section 1.8. Because the central claim leans on these case studies, the scope of the evidence must be reconciled before the survey can be recommended for publication. The fix is a matter of framing and caveats rather than new experiments, so the concern is addressable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.8 vs Section 2.1] This is the main load-bearing issue. Section 1.10 defines RL as sequential and far-sighted, and Section 1.8 states that 'if contextual bandits are more suitable... RL is not the right formulation.' Nevertheless, Section 2.1 presents the Decision Service, a contextual-bandit system with no state transitions and immediate rewards, as the first recommender-system application. By the paper's own criterion, this case study is not an RL application. The survey should either extend its definition of RL to include one-step contextual decision making, or reclassify Decision Service as a neighboring paradigm; otherwise the evidence base does not support the claim that RL's far-sightedness drives the reported successes.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 5.1] The data center cooling case study in Section 4.1 is explicitly model-predictive control: the controller learns a linear model and optimizes a trajectory over a short horizon, not trial-and-error policy learning from evaluative feedback. Similarly, Section 5.1 describes option pricing through least-squares Monte Carlo, approximate value iteration, and LSPI; the first two are standard approximate dynamic programming methods rather than RL methods that learn policies from interaction, and the section does not distinguish these cases. If the survey intends to use a broad definition that includes all sequential decision-making under uncertainty, that definition should be stated and used consistently; if not, these case studies should be moved to a separate 'related methods' section. This matters because the central claim in Section 1.10 depends on the selected applications being genuine examples of RL.
  3. [Section 1.10] The statement 'It is also shown that tasks with computable descriptions in computer science can be formulated as RL problems' is a strong universality claim with no citation or proof. As written, it is unsupported and overstates the scope of the cited literature. Please provide a precise reference or a formal statement of the result, or remove the sentence. This is central because the sentence is used to support the conclusion that 'the time for reinforcement learning is coming.'
  4. [Section 2.1 and Section 2.2] The survey repeats vendor-reported performance numbers—for example, '>25% CTR improvements' and an '18% revenue lift' for Decision Service in Section 2.1, and an A/B test result showing Horizon 'outperforms the control non-RL model' in Section 2.2—without indicating that these are company-published results subject to selection effects and conflicts of interest. If these numbers are used as evidence for RL's real-world value, the survey should either verify them against independent evaluations or explicitly label them as vendor claims and add a caution about evidence quality.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1.5] The heading 'An shortest path example' should read 'A shortest path example.'
  2. [Section 1.4] The phrase 'trail-and-error' should be 'trial-and-error.'
  3. [Section 3.5] In Table 2, 'curcuit design' should be 'circuit design.'
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'a bargaining is available' is unclear; please rephrase.
  5. [Section 1.10] The attribution 'AI = RL + DL' to David Silver needs a citation or should be phrased as an informal hypothesis.
  6. [Section 1.12 and Section 7.3] The manuscript repeatedly refers readers to the author's earlier overview (Li 2017) for additional details; a brief paragraph explaining what this manuscript adds beyond Li 2017 would help address novelty and overlap concerns.
  7. [Section 1.7] The detailed workshop logistics (invited talks, panelists, best-paper list) read as organizational material; consider moving it to a footnote or appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a survey with no derived predictions or fitted parameters, and its central claim is supported by external cited applications rather than by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper is a literature survey and tutorial on reinforcement learning applications; it contains no derivations, no equations that reduce to their inputs, and no fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions. Its central claim, that RL is a general and promising sequential decision-making paradigm, is supported by descriptions of external systems and results such as AlphaGo, DQN, Horizon, Park, and the sepsis treatment study. The author cites some of his own prior work, including Li (2017), Li et al. (2018), and Li et al. (2009), but these citations are not load-bearing for the survey's main thesis: they appear in annotated bibliographies and as sources for specific application descriptions, and the same claims are independently grounded in the external literature cited alongside them. Removing those self-citations would not collapse the survey's argument. The paper also contains a scope inconsistency rather than a circular step: Section 1.8 says that if contextual bandits are more suitable then 'RL is not the right formulation,' yet Section 2.1 presents a contextual bandit system, the Decision Service, as an RL application. That is a potential evidentiary or categorization weakness, but it is not circular reasoning because the survey makes no formal derivation whose conclusion is presupposed by its inputs. The survey is self-contained as a summary and does not manufacture its conclusions from its own definitions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey's content is a restatement of cited work; the only assumptions are the accuracy of the sources and the standard RL background. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption All cited application papers correctly describe their methods and quantitative results.
    The survey's support for RL effectiveness rests entirely on the accuracy of its summaries of cited papers, such as the Decision Service CTR lifts in Section 2.1 and Horizon A/B tests in Section 2.2.
  • standard math Standard RL background, including MDPs, Q-learning, and policy gradients, is accurately summarized.
    The introduction (Sections 1.2 to 1.4) summarizes standard RL concepts, which are textbook material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reinforcement Learning Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55A4E2XT

@misc{pith2026190806973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reinforcement Learning Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55A4E2XT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06973}
}
read the original abstract

We start with a brief introduction to reinforcement learning (RL), about its successful stories, basics, an example, issues, the ICML 2019 Workshop on RL for Real Life, how to use it, study material and an outlook. Then we discuss a selection of RL applications, including recommender systems, computer systems, energy, finance, healthcare, robotics, and transportation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Agent-environment interaction. this process continues until the agent reaches a terminal state and then it restarts. Otherwise, the environment is continuing without a terminal state. There is a discount factor to measure the influ￾ence of future award. The model refers to the transition probability and the reward function. The RL formulation is very general: state and action spaces can be discrete or continuous; an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An shortest path example. neighbour of node S, i.e., node A, as the next node to traverse, then we cannot find the shortest path, i.e., S → C → F → T. This shows that a short-sighted choice, e.g., choosing node A to traverse from node S, may lead to a sub-optimal solution. RL methods, like TD-learning and Q-learning, can find the optimal solution by considering long-term rewards. Some readers may ask why not use Dij… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The procedure of how to use RL. We then conduct experiments to tune hyperparameters and to examine performance metrics. It is desirable to compare RL with the state of the art, which may be reinforcement learning, supervised learning, contextual bandit, or some traditional algorithms. We may iterate the above steps to make improvements. Once we have decent performance, we will deploy the trained RL model in the real… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RL applications. • recommender systems in Chapter 2, discussing Decision Service, Horizon: an open source applied RL platform, news recommendation, and multiple items recommendation; • computer systems in Chapter 3, discussing neural architecture search, device placeme…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the Decision Service architecture. The Client Library implements various explo￾ration policies to implement the Explore abstraction. It interfaces with the App, takes context feature and event key as input and outputs an action. It sends data to the Log component…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Horizon RL pipeline. (from https://code.fb.com/ml-applications/ horizon/) Horizon has been deployed for notification services for push notifications and page administrator notifications at Facebook to deliver more relevant notifications, and has also been applied to vi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Deep RL news recommender system. (from Zheng et al. (2018)) To define states and actions, we first discuss feature construction. There are four categories of features: news features, user features, user news features, and context features. News features describe if a p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Deep RL recommender system model framework. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An overview of neural architecture search. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Device placement model architecture. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A policy found on SVHN, and how to use it. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: RL framework for cluster scheduling. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Park architects an RL-as-a-service design paradigm. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Self-play RL in AlphaGo Zero. (from Silver et al. (2017)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: MCTS in AlphaGo Zero. (from Silver et al. (2017)) A probability network computes the probability to assign a valid color to the current node, taking inputs of graph context, problem context, and context for each possible color. A value network computes the expected ou…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Data center cooling loop. (from Lazic et al. (2018)) The method is compared with a local proportional integral derivative (PID) controller and a certainty-equivalent controller, which updates parameters of the dynamics model assuming the esti￾mated model were accurate…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The feedback loops for an adaptive stochastic controller for the smart grid. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Data flow for sepsis treatment. (from Komorowski et al. (2018)) Experiments show that the policy learned by RL has larger value, or lower mortality, than those from human clinicians, and that the patients have the lowest mortality when they receive treatments similar …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Hybrid retrieval-generation RL agent. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation system overview. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Steps to create a policy for a legged robot. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Composition and workflow of the order dispatching simulator. (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. RLInspect: An Interactive Visual Approach to Assess Reinforcement Learning Algorithm

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RLInspect integrates interactive visualizations of state coverage, action behavior, reward stability, and gradient health into one modular tool, demonstrated on Cartpole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Agarwal, A., Bird, S., Cozowicz, M., Hoang, L., Langford, J., Lee, S., Li, J., Melamed, D., Oshri, G., Ribas, O., Sen, S., and Slivkins, A. (2016). Making contextual decisions with low technical debt. ArXiv

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Gall, H., Kamar, E., Nagappan, N., Nushi, B., and Zimmermann, T. (2019). Software engineering for machine learning: A case study. In ICSE

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    N., Boulanger, A., Powell, W

    Anderson, R. N., Boulanger, A., Powell, W. B., and Scott, W. (2011). Adaptive stochastic control for the smart grid. Proceedings of the IEEE , 99(6):1098--1115

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Bacoyannis, V., Glukhov, V., Jin, T., Kochems, J., and Song, D. R. (2018). Idiosyncrasies and challenges of data driven learning in electronic trading. In NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Challenges and Opportunities for AI in Financial Services: the Impact of Fairness, Explainability, Accuracy, and Privacy

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bertsekas, D. P. (2019). Reinforcement Learning and Optimal Control (draft) . Athena Scientific

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Bertsekas, D. P. and Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1996). Neuro-Dynamic Programming . Athena Scientific

    1996

  7. [7]

    and Sandholm, T

    Brown, N. and Sandholm, T. (2017). Superhuman ai for heads-up no-limit poker: Libratus beats top professionals. Science

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    and Murphy, S

    Chakraborty, B. and Murphy, S. A. (2014). Dynamic treatment regimes. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 1:447--464

    work page 2014

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, S.-Y., Yu, Y., Da, Q., Tan, J., Huang, H.-K., and Tang, H.-H. (2018). Stabilizing reinforcement learning in dynamic environment with application to online recommendation. In KDD

    2018

  2. [10]

    Chen, X., Li, S., Li, H., Jiang, S., Qi, Y., and Song, L. (2019). Generative adversarial user model for reinforcement learning based recommendation system. In ICML

    2019

  3. [11]

    D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., and Le, Q

    Cubuk, E. D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., and Le, Q. V. (2019). Autoaugment: Learning augmentation policies from data. In CVPR

    2019

  4. [12]

    B., Zhang, Y., Dilkina, B., and Song, L

    Dai, H., Khalil, E. B., Zhang, Y., Dilkina, B., and Song, L. (2017). Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs. In NIPS

    2017

  5. [13]

    Gauci, J., Conti, E., Liang, Y., Virochsiri, K., He, Y., Kaden, Z., Narayanan, V., Ye, X., and Chen, Z. (2019). Horizon: Facebook's open source applied reinforcement learning platform. In RL4RealLife

    2019

  6. [14]

    Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning . MIT Press

    2016

  7. [15]

    Gottesman, O., Johansson, F., Komorowski, M., Faisal, A., Sontag, D., Doshi-Velez, F., and Celi, L. A. (2019). Guidelines for reinforcement learning in healthcare. Nature Medicine , 25:14--18

    2019

  8. [16]

    Haarnoja, T., Zhou, A., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. (2018). Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. In ICML

    2018

  9. [17]

    Hu, Y., Da, Q., Zeng, A., Yu, Y., and Xu, Y. (2018). Reinforcement learning to rank in e-commerce search engine: Formalization, analysis, and application. In KDD

    2018

  10. [18]

    Huang, J., Patwary, M., and Diamos, G. (2019). Coloring big graphs with alphagozero. ArXiv

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hull, J. C. (2014). Options, Futures and Other Derivatives (9th edition) . Prentice Hall

    2014

  12. [20]

    Hwangbo, J., Lee, J., Dosovitskiy, A., Bellicoso, D., Tsounis, V., Koltun, V., and Hutter, M. (2019). Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots. Science Robotics , 4(26)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ie, E., Jain, V., Wang, J., Narvekar, S., Agarwal, R., Wu, R., Cheng, H.-T., Lustman, M., Gatto, V., Covington, P., McFadden, J., Chandra, T., and Boutilier, C. (2019a). Reinforcement learning for slate-based recommender systems: A tractable decomposition and practical methodo...

    2019

  14. [22]

    C., Wu, R., Jain, V., and Boutilier, C

    Ie, E., wei Hsu, C., Mladenov, M., Narvekar, S., Wang, J. C., Wu, R., Jain, V., and Boutilier, C. (2019b). Recsim --- a configurable recommender systems environment. In RL4RealLife

    2019

  15. [23]

    M., Dunning , I., Marris , L., Lever , G., Garcia Castaneda , A., Beattie , C., Rabinowitz , N

    Jaderberg , M., Czarnecki , W. M., Dunning , I., Marris , L., Lever , G., Garcia Castaneda , A., Beattie , C., Rabinowitz , N. C., Morcos , A. S., Ruderman , A., Sonnerat , N., Green , T., Deason , L., Leibo , J. Z., Silver , D., Hassabis , D., Kavukcuoglu , K., and Graepel , ...

    2018

  16. [24]

    and Li, L

    Jiang, N. and Li, L. (2016). Doubly robust off-policy value evaluation for reinforcement learning. In ICML

    2016

  17. [25]

    Karampatziakis, N., Kochman, S., Huang, J., Mineiro, P., Osborne, K., and Chen, W. (2019). Lessons from real-world reinforcement learning in a customer support bot. In RL4RealLife

    2019

  18. [26]

    and Nevmyvaka, Y

    Kearns, M. and Nevmyvaka, Y. (2013). Machine learning for market microstructure and high frequency trading. In Easley, D., de Prado, M. L., and O?Hara, M., editors, High-Frequency Trading - New Realities for Traders, Markets and Regulators . Risk Books

    2013

  19. [27]

    A., and Peters, J

    Kober, J., Bagnell, J. A., and Peters, J. (2013). Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. International Journal of Robotics Research , 32(11):1238--1278

    2013

  20. [28]

    A., Badawi, O., Gordon, A

    Komorowski, M., Celi, L. A., Badawi, O., Gordon, A. C., and Faisal, A. A. (2018). The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nature Medicine , 24:1716--1720

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kool, W., van Hoof, H., and Welling, M. (2019). Attention, learn to solve routing problems! In ICLR

    2019

  22. [30]

    Lagoudakis, M. G. and Parr, R. (2003). Least-squares policy iteration. JMLR , 4:1107 -- 1149

    2003

  23. [31]

    Lazic, N., Boutilier, C., Lu, T., Wong, E., Roy, B., Ryu, M., and Imwalle, G. (2018). Data center cooling using model-predictive control. In NeurIPS

    2018

  24. [32]

    Li, L., Chu, W., Langford, J., and Schapire, R. E. (2010). A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In WWW

    2010

  25. [33]

    Li, M., (Tony)Qin, Z., Jiao, Y., Yang, Y., Gong, Z., Wang, J., Wang, C., Wu, G., and Ye, J. (2019). Efficient ridesharing order dispatching with mean field multi-agent reinforcement learning. In WWW

    2019

  26. [34]

    Li , Y. (2017). Deep Reinforcement Learning: An Overview . ArXiv

    2017

  27. [35]

    Li, Y., Liang, X., Hu, Z., and Xing, E. (2018). Hybrid retrieval-generation reinforced agent for medical image report generation. In NeurIPS

    2018

  28. [36]

    Li, Y., Szepesv \'a ri, C., and Schuurmans, D. (2009). Learning exercise policies for A merican options. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS)

    2009

  29. [37]

    P., Hunt, J

    Lillicrap, T. P., Hunt, J. J., Pritzel, A., Heess, N., Erez, T., Tassa, Y., Silver, D., and Wierstra, D. (2016). Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. In ICLR

    2016

  30. [38]

    A., Doshi-Velez, F., and Brunskill, E

    Liu, Y., Gottesman, O., Raghu, A., Komorowski, M., Faisal, A. A., Doshi-Velez, F., and Brunskill, E. (2018). Representation balancing MDPs for off-policy policy evaluation. In NeurIPS

    2018

  31. [39]

    Longstaff, F. A. and Schwartz, E. S. (2001). Valuing American options by simulation: a simple least-squares approach . The Review of Financial Studies , 14(1):113--147

    2001

  32. [40]

    Mao, H., Narayan, A., Negi, P., Wang, H., Yang, J., Wang, H., Khani, M., He, S., Addanki, R., Marcus, R., Cangialosi, F., Weng, W.-H., Han, S., Kraska, T., and Alizadeh, M. (2019a). Park: An open platform for learning augmented computer systems. In RL4RealLife

    2019

  33. [41]

    B., Meng, Z., and Alizadeh, M

    Mao, H., Schwarzkopf, M., Venkatakrishnan, S. B., Meng, Z., and Alizadeh, M. (2019b). Learning scheduling algorithms for data processing clusters. In ACM SIGCOMM

    2019

  34. [42]

    V., Steiner, B., Larsen, R., Zhou, Y., Kumar, N., and Mohammad Norouzi, Samy Bengio, J

    Mirhoseini, A., Pham, H., Le, Q. V., Steiner, B., Larsen, R., Zhou, Y., Kumar, N., and Mohammad Norouzi, Samy Bengio, J. D. (2017). Device placement optimization with reinforcement learning. In ICML

    2017

  35. [43]

    P., Mirza, M., Graves, A., Harley, T., Lillicrap, T

    Mnih, V., Badia, A. P., Mirza, M., Graves, A., Harley, T., Lillicrap, T. P., Silver, D., and Kavukcuoglu, K. (2016). Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In ICML

    2016

  36. [44]

    A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M

    Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., Petersen, S., Beattie, C., Sadik, A., Antonoglou, I., King, H., Kumaran, D., Wierstra, D., Legg, S., and Hassabis, D. (2015). Human-le...

    2015

  37. [45]

    Morav c \' i k, M., Schmid, M., Burch, N., Lis \'y , V., Morrill, D., Bard, N., Davis, T., Waugh, K., Johanson, M., and Bowling, M. (2017). Deepstack: Expert-level artificial intelligence in heads-up no-limit poker. Science , 356(6337):508--513

    2017

  38. [46]

    OpenAI, Andrychowicz, M., Baker, B., Chociej, M., J \'o zefowicz, R., McGrew, B., Pachocki, J., Petron, A., Plappert, M., Powell, G., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Sidor, S., Tobin, J., Welinder, P., Weng, L., and Zaremba, W. (2018). Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation. ArXiv

    2018

  39. [47]

    B., Abbeel, P., Levine, S., and van de Panne, M

    Peng, X. B., Abbeel, P., Levine, S., and van de Panne, M. (2018). Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. In SIGGRAPH

    2018

  40. [48]

    Popova, M., Isayev, O., and Tropsha, A. (2018). Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design. Science Advances , 4(7)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Powell, W. B. (2011). Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the curses of dimensionality (2nd Edition) . John Wiley and Sons

    2011

  42. [50]

    and Norvig, P

    Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd edition) . Pearson

    2009

  43. [51]

    Saria, S. (2018). Individualized sepsis treatment using reinforcement learning. Nature Medicine , 24:1638--1644

    2018

  44. [52]

    I., and Abbeel, P

    Schulman, J., Levine, S., Moritz, P., Jordan, M. I., and Abbeel, P. (2015). Trust region policy optimization. In ICML

    2015

  45. [53]

    Schulman , J., Wolski , F., Dhariwal , P., Radford , A., and Klimov , O. (2017). Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms . ArXiv

    2017

  46. [54]

    Segler, M. H. S., Preuss, M., and Waller, M. P. (2018). Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI . Nature , 555:604--610

    2018

  47. [55]

    Shi, J.-C., Yu, Y., Da, Q., Chen, S.-Y., and Zeng, A.-X. (2019). Virtual-taobao: Virtualizing real-world online retail environment for reinforcement learning. In AAAI

    2019

  48. [56]

    J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., Van Den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al

    Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., Van Den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al. (2016). Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature , 529(7587):484--489

    2016

  49. [57]

    Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., Lillicrap, T., Simonyan, K., and Hassabis, D. (2018). A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and go through self-play....

    2018

  50. [58]

    Silver, D., Lever, G., Heess, N., Degris, T., Wierstra, D., and Riedmiller, M. (2014). Deterministic policy gradient algorithms. In ICML

    2014

  51. [59]

    Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., Chen, Y., Lillicrap, T., Hui, F., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Graepel, T., and Hassabis, D. (2017). Mastering the game of go without human knowle...

    2017

  52. [60]

    P., Day, J., George, A

    Sim \ a o, H. P., Day, J., George, A. P., Gifford, T., Nienow, J., and Powell, W. B. (2009). An approximate dynamic programming algorithm for large-scale fleet management: A case application. Transportation Science , 43(2):178--197

    2009

  53. [61]

    Sutton, R. S. and Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (2nd Edition) . MIT Press

    2018

  54. [62]

    S., Precup, D., and Singh, S

    Sutton, R. S., Precup, D., and Singh, S. (1999). Between MDP s and semi- MDP s: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. Artificial Intelligence , 112(1-2):181--211

    1999

  55. [63]

    Szepesv \'a ri, C. (2010). Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning . Morgan & Claypool

    2010

  56. [64]

    Tang, X., Qin, Z., Zhang, F., Wang, Z., Xu, Z., Ma, Y., Zhu, H., and Ye, J. (2019). A deep value-network based approach for multi-driver order dispatching. In KDD

    2019

  57. [65]

    S., and Ghavamzadeh, M

    Theocharous, G., Thomas, P. S., and Ghavamzadeh, M. (2015). Personalized ad recommendation systems for life-time value optimization with guarantees. In IJCAI

    2015

  58. [66]

    S., Theocharous, G., and Ghavamzadeh, M

    Thomas, P. S., Theocharous, G., and Ghavamzadeh, M. (2015). High-confidence off-policy evaluation. In AAAI

    2015

  59. [67]

    Tsitsiklis, J. N. and Van Roy , B. (2001). Regression methods for pricing complex American -style options. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , 12(4):694--703

    2001

  60. [68]

    Wei, H., Zheng, G., Yao, H., and Li, Z. (2018). Intellilight: A reinforcement learning approach for intelligent traffic light control. In KDD

    2018

  61. [69]

    Zhang , S., Yao , L., Sun , A., and Tay , Y. (2018). Deep learning based recommender system: A survey and new perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys

    2018

  62. [70]

    Zhao, X., Xia, L., Tang, J., and Yin, D. (2019). Reinforcement learning for online information seeking. ACM SIGWEB Newsletter (SIGWEB)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Zhao, X., Xia, L., Zhang, L., Ding, Z., Yin, D., and Tang, J. (2018a). Deep reinforcement learning for page-wise recommendations. In the ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (ACM RecSys)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Zhao, X., Zhang, L., Ding, Z., Xia, L., Tang, J., and Yin, D. (2018b). Recommendations with negative feedback via pairwise deep reinforcement learning. In KDD

    2018

  65. [73]

    J., Xie, X., and Li, Z

    Zheng, G., Zhang, F., Zheng, Z., Xiang, Y., Yuan, N. J., Xie, X., and Li, Z. (2018). DRN : A deep reinforcement learning framework for news recommendation. In WWW

    2018

  66. [74]

    and Le, Q

    Zoph, B. and Le, Q. V. (2017). Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In ICLR

    2017

  67. [75]

    Zoph , B., Vasudevan , V., Shlens , J., and Le , Q. V. (2018). Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In CVPR

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.