Dual Representations for Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the dual approach to dynamic programming and reinforcement learning, based on maintaining an explicit representation of stationary distributions as opposed to value functions. A significant advantage of the dual approach is that it allows one to exploit well developed techniques for representing, approximating and estimating probability distributions, without running the risks associated with divergent value function estimation. A second advantage is that some distinct algorithms for the average reward and discounted reward case in the primal become unified under the dual. In this paper, we present a modified dual of the standard linear program that guarantees a globally normalized state visit distribution is obtained. With this reformulation, we then derive novel dual forms of dynamic programming, including policy evaluation, policy iteration and value iteration. Moreover, we derive dual formulations of temporal difference learning to obtain new forms of Sarsa and Q-learning. Finally, we scale these techniques up to large domains by introducing approximation, and develop new approximate off-policy learning algorithms that avoid the divergence problems associated with the primal approach. We show that the dual view yields a viable alternative to standard value function based techniques and opens new avenues for solving dynamic programming and reinforcement learning problems
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".