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
State construction is important for learning in partially observable environments. A general purpose strategy for state construction is to learn the state update using a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), which updates the internal state using the current internal state and the most recent observation. This internal state provides a summary of the observed sequence, to facilitate accurate predictions and decision-making. At the same time, specifying and training RNNs is notoriously tricky, particularly as the common strategy to approximate gradients back in time, called truncated Back-prop Through Time (BPTT), can be sensitive to the truncation window. Further, domain-expertise—which can usually help constrain the function class and so improve trainability—can be difficult to incorporate into complex recurrent units used within RNNs. In this work, we explore how to use multi-step predictions to constrain the RNN and incorporate prior knowledge. In particular, we revisit the idea of using predictions to construct state and ask: does constraining (parts of) the state to consist of predictions about the future improve RNN trainability? We formulate a novel RNN architecture, called a General Value Function Network (GVFN), where each internal state component corresponds to a prediction about the future represented as a value function. We first provide an objective for optimizing GVFNs, and derive several algorithms to optimize this objective. We then show that GVFNs are more robust to the truncation level, in many cases only requiring one-step gradient updates.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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