GQ( ): A general gradient algorithm for temporal-difference prediction learning with eligibility traces
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
A new family of gradient temporal-difference learning algorithms have recently been introduced by Sutton, Maei and others in which function approximation is much more straightforward. In this paper, we introduce the GQ() algorithm which can be seen as extension of that work to a more general setting including eligibility traces and off-policy learning of temporally abstract predictions. These extensions bring us closer to the ultimate goal of this work-the development of a universal prediction learning algorithm suitable for learning experientially grounded knowledge of the world. Eligibility traces are essential to this goal because they bridge the temporal gaps in cause and effect when experience is processed at a temporally fine resolution. Temporally abstract predictions are also essential as the means for representing abstract, higher-level knowledge about courses of action, or options. GQ() can be thought of as an extension of Q-learning. We extend existing convergence results for policy evaluation to this setting and carry out a forward-view/backwardview analysis to derive and prove the validity of the new algorithm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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