Toward Off-Policy Learning Control with Function Approximation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first temporal-difference learning algorithm for off-policy control with unrestricted linear function approximation whose per-time-step complexity is linear in the number of features. Our algorithm, Greedy-GQ, is an extension of recent work on gradient temporal-difference learning, which has hitherto been restricted to a prediction (policy evaluation) setting, to a control setting in which the target policy is greedy with respect to a linear approximation to the optimal action-value function. A limitation of our control setting is that we require the behavior policy to be stationary. We call this setting latent learning because the optimal policy, though learned, is not manifest in behavior. Popular off-policy algorithms such as Q-learning are known to be unstable in this setting when used with linear function approximation. In reinforcement learning, the term “off-policy learning” refers to learning about one way of behaving, called the target policy, from data generated by another way of selecting actions, called the behavior policy. The target policy is often an approximation to the optimal policy, which is typically deterministic, whereas the behavior policy is often stochastic, exploring all possible actions in each state as part of finding the optimal policy. Freeing the behavior policy from the target policy enables a greater variety of exploration strategies to be used. It also enables learning from training data generated by unrelated controllers, including manual human control, and from previously collected data. A third reason for interest in off-policy learning is that it permits learning about multiple target policies (e.g., optimal policies for multiple subgoals) from a single stream of data generated by a
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it