Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Broad Critic Deep Actor Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing the DNN critic with a broad learning system critic trained by ridge regression speeds up DDPG, TD3, and SAC by up to 68 percent on continuous-control benchmarks.

desk verdict A useful, incremental hybrid (BLS critic + DNN actor) with a plausible speedup claim, but the abstract's accuracy claim overreaches the paper's own Table I, and two equations have outright typos. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15806 v2 pith:Y6A2KTYP submitted 2024-11-24 cs.LG cs.AI

Shiron Thalagala , Pak Kin Wong , Xiaozheng Wang , Tianang Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords broadcriticdeepactorlearningsystemreinforcementcontinuouscontrolactor-criticridgeregressionincremental
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 critic network in actor-critic reinforcement learning need not be a deep neural network. It proposes a hybrid 'broad critic deep actor' (BCDA) design in which the critic is a broad learning system trained by closed-form ridge regression, while the actor remains a DNN trained by gradient descent. The claim is that swapping DNN critics for this broad critic in DDPG, TD3, and SAC improves training efficiency and accuracy on continuous-control tasks. If the claim holds, actor-critic RL becomes cheaper to run online, which matters for real-time and resource-constrained control applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the broad critic network (BCN): a broad learning system with random feature mapping nodes and enhancement nodes whose only learned weights are the output-layer weights $W_n^m$, computed in closed form by ridge regression, $W_n^m = (A_n^m (A_n^m)^T + \lambda I)^{-1}(A_n^m)^T Y$, where $A_n^m = [Z^n | H^m]$ concatenates the feature and enhancement nodes. Target values come from a delayed copy (t-BCN) via the Bellman-style rule $y_t = r_t + \gamma_t \max_{a_{t+1}} Q(s_{t+1}, a_{t+1})$, and the t-BCN is updated by Polyak averaging. This machinery turns the critic update into a one-shot least-squares fit over the replay buffer rather than iterative backpropagation, which is the mechanism behind the reported speedups; the incremental node-adding rule of BLS is its mechanism for growing capacity when the base critic underfits.

What would settle it

The clearest single check would be to log the critic's Bellman error during BCDA-DDPG training on a sparse-reward continuous-control task; if the error grows rather than shrinks across refits, the closed-form critic is not learning the moving target and the reported speedup would not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that BLS-based critics can replace DNN critics in standard actor-critic algorithms without losing performance, while training substantially faster. The authors implement the BCDA swap for DDPG, TD3, and SAC: target Q-values are computed from target BCNs, the BCN output weights are refit by ridge regression over the replay buffer, and the actor keeps its original gradient-based update. Their experiments on seven continuous-control benchmark tasks show that all BLS-augmented variants match or slightly exceed the peak rewards of the original algorithms and reduce average training time by 22 to 68 percent. The authors present the framework as generalizable to other actor-critic methods, with robustness added through regularization tuning, an ensemble of five BCNs, and dropout in the enhancement nodes.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that repeatedly refitting the critic's output weights with ridge regression, using target values generated by a delayed copy of the same critic, is a stable learning rule that does not drift or diverge as the targets move during training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BCDA-DDPG, BCDA-TD3, and BCDA-SAC train 22 to 68 percent faster than their DNN-critic baselines on the evaluated benchmark tasks, with matching or slightly higher peak rewards.
  • Because the critic is fit by closed-form regression, the efficiency gain should grow relative to DNN critics as the critic's hidden layers get wider or deeper.
  • The framework applies to any actor-critic algorithm whose critic solves a Q-regression problem, so similar BLS-critic versions of other off-policy algorithms should inherit the speedup.
  • Ensembling several broad critics and applying dropout reduces post-convergence reward variance, as demonstrated on the inverted-pendulum task.
  • If the base critic underfits, incrementally adding feature and enhancement nodes can raise accuracy, as shown on the reacher task, giving a practical tuning path for high-dimensional control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The speed advantage is likely to be largest when critic updates dominate wall-clock time, so tasks with wide state-action inputs and large replay batches should show the biggest gap; a per-component timing breakdown would test this.
  • Measuring the BCN critic's mean squared Bellman error during training—something the paper does not report—would reveal whether the closed-form refit is tracking the drifting target or simply fitting a moving regression surface.
  • Because each ridge-regression refit reweights the entire replay buffer, BCDA may be more sensitive to stale or imbalanced replay data than gradient-descent critics; varying buffer size and priority would settle this.
  • The incremental node-adding property of BLS suggests a natural route to online adaptation in non-stationary environments, but the paper only evaluates incremental learning on a single fixed task.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BCDA (Broad Critic Deep Actor), a hybrid actor-critic framework in which the critic is a Broad Learning System (BLS) trained by ridge regression over random feature and enhancement nodes, while the actor remains a DNN trained by gradient-based policy optimization. The framework is instantiated on DDPG, TD3, and SAC, and evaluated on MuJoCo continuous control tasks. The authors report that BCDA variants train 22–68% faster than their DNN-critic counterparts (Table II) and, in the abstract, claim that all BLS-enhanced versions "surpass their original counterparts in terms of training efficiency and accuracy." For DDPG, learning curves and Table I show sizable speedups and slightly higher or equal maximum average rewards. For TD3 and SAC, efficiency and accuracy claims rest on learning curves over five seeds. The paper also studies ridge regularization strength, ensemble BCNs, dropout, and incremental learning schemes.

Significance. The core idea—replacing a deep critic with a closed-form ridge-regression BLS critic while keeping a deep actor—is plausible and, if the efficiency numbers are reproducible, practically useful for real-time control. The manuscript ships source code, which aids reproducibility. The strongest evidence is Table II: all seven BCDA-DDPG variants show 22–68% training-time reductions, and these are consistent with the BLS mechanism (closed-form output weights avoid iterative critic backpropagation). However, the accuracy half of the central claim is not established by the reported statistics, and there is no formal analysis of the stability of the non-stationary closed-form critic updates. The contribution, as presented, is therefore best characterized as "faster training at roughly matched reward," which is weaker than the abstract's claim of both efficiency and accuracy superiority.

major comments (5)
  1. [III-B, Table I] The abstract's claim that all BLS-enhanced versions "surpass their original counterparts in terms of ... accuracy" is not supported by Table I. On INP and ANT, BCDA-DDPG and DDPG are exactly tied (1000 vs. 1000 and 995.51 vs. 995.51), and on HUM, BCDA-DDPG is marginally lower (928.105 vs. 928.10). The remaining differences (REA, PUS, HCH) are small, with no confidence intervals, per-seed values, or significance tests anywhere in the paper. With n=5 and these magnitudes, the accuracy differences are within plausible seed noise, so the stated accuracy superiority is not established.
  2. [II-B, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) defines the non-terminal target as y_t = γ_t max_{a_{t+1}} Q(s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}), omitting the reward r_t. The standard target, consistent with the MSBE in Eq. (1), should be r_t + γ_t max_{a_{t+1}} Q(s_{t+1}, a_{t+1}). If this omission is not a typographical error but reflects the implementation, the critic is regressing against targets that discard the immediate reward in all non-terminal transitions, which would make the reported results very surprising. The paper needs to clarify this and, if it is a typo, correct it.
  3. [III-C, Fig. 6-8] The robustness hyperparameters (λ = 2^{-20}, ensemble of 5 BCNs, dropout rate 0.2) and the four IL schemes are selected on the same tasks (INP for regularization/ensemble/dropout, REA for IL) whose final results are then reported, with no held-out validation tasks or sensitivity analysis beyond these specific selections. Because the final reported learning curves in Fig. 3 use these chosen settings, the efficiency and reward comparisons are not blind to the tuning process. This post-hoc selection does not invalidate the empirical results, but it weakens the claim that the framework's gains are robust rather than task-specific.
  4. [II-B, III-A] The paper provides no analysis—formal or empirical—of the stability of the closed-form ridge-regression critic refit against non-stationary target BCNs. Since the output weights are recomputed by pseudoinverse each update while the targets themselves are moving (Eqs. 9 and 14), the actor gradient depends on the critic Q-values staying grounded; without diagnostics such as target-Q drift, feature-space rank, or Bellman-error monitoring, it is unclear that the reported efficiency gains are not accompanied by silent value-estimation degradation in other regimes. The representational capacity of the fixed 10-feature/500-enhancement BLS for the 393-dimensional HUM state-action space is also unexamined.
  5. [III-A, III-B] The per-task efficiency and accuracy results are reported as means over 5 trials without variance, and the learning curves in Figs. 3–5 show shaded half-standard-deviation regions but no individual seed trajectories. The paper should report per-seed values or confidence intervals for Table I and II, and ideally for the TD3/SAC comparisons. Without this, the "efficiency improvement" percentages and reward differences cannot be separated from seed noise, particularly for the small reward gaps in Table I.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table II caption] The caption says "in the two controls tasks" but the table lists all seven control tasks; this should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Figs. 6-7] The label "DINV" in Fig. 2 and "INV" in Figs. 6-7 are inconsistent with the "DIN" and "INP" names used in the text and Table I; unify the naming.
  3. [Section III-A] The hyperparameters are written as "2-30" and "2-20"; these are presumably powers of two (2^{-30}, 2^{-20}) and should be typeset consistently.
  4. [Table I caption] The caption says "in 10000 timesteps" while the text says 100,000 timesteps; clarify the evaluation horizon.
  5. [Section II-B, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains a stray "d" multiplied by the discount factor; this is likely a typo for the terminal indicator or is otherwise undefined and should be cleaned up.
  6. [References and baselines] The claim that "prior studies [12], [13] validated the superiority of the original SAC and TD3 over DDPG" is not backed by numerical comparisons in this paper; since the paper compares BCDA to the original algorithms, a brief table or plot of DDPG vs. SAC/TD3 on the two selected tasks would help contextualize the TD3/SAC results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BCDA efficiency and accuracy claims are empirical comparisons against external DDPG/TD3/SAC baselines, not derivations equivalent to their inputs; a minor benchmark-tuning and self-citation caveat keeps the score at 2.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical: replacing DNN critics with BLS critics trained by ridge regression is benchmarked against the original DDPG, TD3, and SAC algorithms on MuJoCo tasks, with source code released, so the reported speedups and rewards are not constructed from the framework's own assumptions. The critic update in Section II-B (targets via Eq. (2), ridge-regression weights via Eqs. (8)-(9), Polyak averaging via Eq. (14)) is standard bootstrapped TD regression; although y_t depends on the target BCN, that is the Bellman self-consistency of TD learning, not a definitional reduction of the claimed result. The single self-citation [16] (Yao et al., with co-author P. K. Wong) is used only to motivate the move from offline broad Q-learning to an online actor-critic setting and is not load-bearing for the speed or accuracy claims. The robustness choices (lambda, ensemble, dropout, IL nodes) are tuned on INP/REA and then the same tasks' results are reported; this is benchmark tuning that weakens external validity, but no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The abstract's 'surpass ... accuracy' wording is not fully supported by Table I (equal on INP/ANT, slightly lower on HUM, no confidence intervals), but that is an evidentiary weakness, not circularity. Overall: no derivation-equivalent circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or physical entities are introduced; BCDA is an architectural composition of existing components (BLS, DNN, ridge regression).

free parameters (5)
  • Ridge regularization factor lambda = 2^-30 base; 2^-20 for robustness experiments
    Chosen from experiments on INP (Fig. 6, Table III); the selected value is used in some reported comparisons, so results partly depend on this tuning.
  • Base BCN size = 10 feature nodes + 500 enhancement nodes
    Set by hand in Section III-A; no per-task search except the IL study on REA.
  • IL node additions = Scheme-3: +5 feature, +300 enhancement
    Selected post hoc as best of four schemes on REA (Fig. 8); illustrates capacity tuning but not used in main table.
  • Ensemble size and dropout rate = 5 BCNs, dropout 0.2
    Chosen via INP robustness tests (Section III-C); the paper says Fig. 3 curves are generated with these robustness techniques, so they affect reported results.
  • Shrinkage coefficient = 0.8
    Fixed without ablation; standard BLS default from [9].
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ridge regression on the replay buffer minimizes the mean squared Bellman error and yields a valid critic.
    Section II-B, steps 2-3 replace iterative MSBE minimization with one-shot pseudoinverse fitting to bootstrapped targets; convergence and bias are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Fixed random feature and enhancement nodes are expressive enough to approximate Q-values for the tested tasks.
    Section II-B, Eqs. (3)-(7); capacity is set manually (10 feature, 500 enhancement nodes) and is not guaranteed by any bound.
  • standard math The policy gradient theorem and target-network updates from DDPG/SAC/TD3 remain valid when the critic is a BLS.
    Section II-B.4-5 and II-C; the paper assumes the only modification is the critic estimator, not the underlying off-policy learning dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Broad Critic Deep Actor Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6A2KTYP

@misc{pith2026241115806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Broad Critic Deep Actor Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6A2KTYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15806}
}
read the original abstract

In the domain of continuous control, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) demonstrates promising results. However, the dependence of DRL on deep neural networks (DNNs) results in the demand for extensive data and increased computational cost. To address this issue, a novel hybrid actor-critic reinforcement learning (RL) framework is introduced. The proposed framework integrates the broad learning system (BLS) with DNN, aiming to merge the strengths of both distinct architectural paradigms. Specifically, the critic network employs BLS for rapid value estimation via ridge regression, while the actor network retains the DNN structure to optimize policy gradients. This hybrid design is generalizable and can enhance existing actor-critic algorithms. To demonstrate its versatility, the proposed framework is integrated into three widely used actor-critic algorithms -- deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG), soft actor-critic (SAC), and twin delayed DDPG (TD3), resulting in BLS-augmented variants. Experimental results reveal that all BLS-enhanced versions surpass their original counterparts in terms of training efficiency and accuracy. These improvements highlight the suitability of the proposed framework for real-time control scenarios, where computational efficiency and rapid adaptation are critical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of BCN architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Control tasks used for evaluations: (a) INP, (b) DINV, (c) REA, (d) PUS, (e) ANT, (f) HCH, and (g) HUM. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Learning curves of (a) HCH and (b) HUM across 5 trials of 105 timesteps with BCD-SAC and SAC. The shaded region in each line represents half of the standard deviation across the 5 trials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Learning curves of (a) INP, (b) DINV, (c) REA, (d) PUS, (e) ANT, (f) HCH, and (g) HUM across 5 trials of 105 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Learning curve by varying 𝜆 in INV control task with the BCDA-DDPG algorithm. (a) 𝜆 = 2 −40, (b) 𝜆 = 2 −30, and (c) 𝜆 = 2 −20 . 0.2 0.4 0. 0.8 1 x 105 Timesteps 200 0 400 00 800 1000 Average Reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Learning curve of INV control task with BCDA-DDPG algorithm with (a) 𝜆 = 2 −20 and (b) 𝜆 = 2 −20 together with ensemble BCN and dropout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Learning curves of REA when trained using BCDA￾DDPG algorithm on different IL schemes. TABLE I MAXIMUM AVERAGE REWARD OF ALL CONTROL TASKS IN 10000 TIMESTEPS OVER 5 TRIALS WITH BCDA-DDPG ALGORITHM Control Task DDPG BCDA-DDPG INP 1000 1000 DIN 9359.95 9359.97 REA -1.39 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Tour of Reinforcement Learning: The View from Continuous Control,

    B. Recht, “A Tour of Reinforcement Learning: The View from Continuous Control,” Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 253–279, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Deep reinforcement learning on variable stiffness compliant control for programming -free robotic assembly in smart manufacturing,

    Z. Ji, G. Liu, W. Xu, B. Yao, X. Liu, and Z. Zhou, “Deep reinforcement learning on variable stiffness compliant control for programming -free robotic assembly in smart manufacturing,” International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1–23, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Augmenting reinforcement learning with Transformer -based scene representation learning for decision-making of autonomous driving,

    H. Liu, Z. Huang, X. Mo, and C. Lv, “Augmenting reinforcement learning with Transformer -based scene representation learning for decision-making of autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pp. 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A review on reinforcement learning: Introduction and applications in industrial process control,

    R. Nian, J. Liu, and B. Huang, “A review on reinforcement learning: Introduction and applications in industrial process control,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 139, p. 106886, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    An application of reinforcement learning to aerobatic helicopter flight,

    P. Abbeel, A. Coates, M. Quigley, and A. Ng, “An application of reinforcement learning to aerobatic helicopter flight,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control,

    Y. Duan, X. Chen, R. Houthooft, J. Schulman, and P. Abbeel, “Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control,” in International conference on machine learning , PMLR, pp. 1329 –1338, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State and Action Spaces,

    H. Van Hasselt, “Reinforcement Learning in Continuous State and Action Spaces,” in Reinforcement Learning, vol. 12, M. Wiering and M. Van Otterlo, Eds., in Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization, vol. 12 , Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 207–251, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Overview of deep reinforcement learning improvements and applications,

    J. Zhang, C. Zhang, and W.-C. Chien, “Overview of deep reinforcement learning improvements and applications,” Journal of Internet Technology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 239–255, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Broad learning system: An effective and efficient incremental learning system without the need for deep architecture,

    C. P. Chen and Z. Liu, “Broad learning system: An effective and efficient incremental learning system without the need for deep architecture,” IEEE Transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 10–24, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    A survey of actor-critic reinforcement learning: Standard and natural policy gradients,

    I. Grondman, L. Busoniu, G. A. Lopes, and R. Babuska, “A survey of actor-critic reinforcement learning: Standard and natural policy gradients,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, part C (applications and reviews), vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1291–1307, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning

    T. P. Lillicrap et al. , “Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.02971, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Soft actor -critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor -critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1861–1870

    2018

  5. [13]

    Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods,” in International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2018, pp. 1587–1596

    2018

  6. [14]

    Broad reinforcement learning for supporting fast autonomous IoT,

    X. Wei, J. Zhao, L. Zhou, and Y. Qian, “Broad reinforcement learning for supporting fast autonomous IoT,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 7010–7020, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Deep reinforcement learning with double q -learning,

    H. Van Hasselt, A. Guez, and D. Silver, “Deep reinforcement learning with double q -learning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Efficient Incremental Offline Reinforcement Learning With Sparse Broad Critic Approximation,

    L. Yao, B. Zhao, X. Xu, Z. Wang, P. K. Wong, and Y. Hu, “Efficient Incremental Offline Reinforcement Learning With Sparse Broad Critic Approximation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 156–169, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Broad learning with reinforcement learning signal feedback: Theory and applications,

    R. Mao, R. Cui, and C. P. Chen, “Broad learning with reinforcement learning signal feedback: Theory and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 2952 – 2964, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Reinforcement learning control with knowledge shaping,

    X. Gao, J. Si, and H. Huang, “Reinforcement learning control with knowledge shaping,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 3156–3167, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Stochastic integrated actor –critic for deep reinforcement learning,

    J. Zheng, M. N. Kurt, and X. Wang, “Stochastic integrated actor –critic for deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Human -level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V. Mnih et al. , “Human -level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Generalized inverse of a matrix and its applications ,

    C. R. Rao, “ Generalized inverse of a matrix and its applications ,” in Theory of Statistics , L. M. Le Cam, J. Neyman, and E. L. Scott, Eds., University of California Press, pp. 601–620, 1972

    1972

  14. [22]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y. Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems, IEEE, pp. 5026–5033, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    OpenAI Gym

    G. Brockman et al., “OpenAI Gym.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    TensorFlow: a system for Large -Scale machine learning,

    M. Abadi et al. , “TensorFlow: a system for Large -Scale machine learning,” in 12th USENIX symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 16), pp. 265–283, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines,

    V. Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines,” in Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning (ICML-10), pp. 807–814, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Dynamic event - based tracking control of boiler turbine systems with guaranteed performance,

    J. Zhang, D. Yang, H. Zhang, Y. Wang, and B. Zhou, “Dynamic event - based tracking control of boiler turbine systems with guaranteed performance,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 4272–4282, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ensemble bootstrapping for q-learning,

    O. Peer, C. Tessler, N. Merlis, and R. Meir, “Ensemble bootstrapping for q-learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 8454–8463

    2021

  20. [28]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting,

    N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting,” The journal of machine learning research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1929–1958, 2014

    1929

  21. [29]

    Pruned Broad Learning System Based on Sparse Ridge Fusion,

    F. Chu, X. Lu, J. Su, T. Liang, C. P. Chen, and X. Wang, “Pruned Broad Learning System Based on Sparse Ridge Fusion,” 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Scaling distributed machine learning with the parameter server,

    M. Li et al., “Scaling distributed machine learning with the parameter server,” in 11th USENIX Symposium on operating systems design and implementation (OSDI 14), 2014, pp. 583–598

    2014

  23. [31]

    Quarl: Quantization for fast and environmentally sustainable reinforcement learning,

    A. Faust et al., “Quarl: Quantization for fast and environmentally sustainable reinforcement learning,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR), 2022. Fig. 1. Schematic of BCN architecture. Feature Mapping Nodes Enhancement Nodes Additional Feature Mapping Node Additi...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.