MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026641456 · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102463

TD(λ) networks

2005· article· en· W2026641456 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTemporal difference learningGeneralizationFormalism (music)Artificial intelligenceLearning networkMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmReinforcement learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal-difference (TD) networks have been introduced as a formalism for expressing and learning grounded world knowledge in a predictive form (Sutton & Tanner, 2005). Like conventional TD(0) methods, the learning algorithm for TD networks uses 1-step backups to train prediction units about future events. In conventional TD learning, the TD(λ) algorithm is often used to do more general multi-step backups of future predictions. In our work, we introduce a generalization of the 1-step TD network specification that is based on the TD(λ) learning algorithm, creating TD(λ) networks. We present experimental results that show TD(λ) networks can learn solutions in more complex environments than TD networks. We also show that in problems that can be solved by TD networks, TD(λ) networks generally learn solutions much faster than their 1-step counterparts. Finally, we present an analysis of our algorithm that shows that the computational cost of TD(λ) networks is only slightly more than that of TD networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207