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
TD(λ) is a core algorithm of modern reinforcement learning. Its appeal comes from its equivalence to a clear and conceptually simple forward view, and the fact that it can be implemented online in an inexpensive manner. However, the equivalence between TD(λ) and the forward view is exact only for the off-line version of the algorithm (in which updates are made only at the end of each episode). In the online version of TD(λ) (in which updates are made at each step, which generally performs better and is always used in applications) the match to the forward view is only approximate. In a sense this is unavoidable for the conventional forward view, as it itself presumes that the estimates are unchanging during an episode. In this paper we introduce a new forward view that takes into account the possibility of changing estimates and a new variant of TD(λ) that exactlyachieves it. Our algorithm uses a new form of eligibility trace similar to but different from conventional accumulating and replacing traces. The overall computational complexity is the same as TD(λ), even when using function approximation. In our empirical comparisons, our algorithm outperformed TD(λ) in all of its variations. It seems, by adhering more truly to the original goal of TD(λ)--matching an intuitively clear forward view even in the online case--that we have found a new algorithm that simply improves on classical TD(λ).
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