Multi-step Reinforcement Learning: A Unifying Algorithm
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
Unifying seemingly disparate algorithmic ideas to produce better performing algorithms has been a longstanding goal in reinforcement learning. As a primary example, TD($λ$) elegantly unifies one-step TD prediction with Monte Carlo methods through the use of eligibility traces and the trace-decay parameter $λ$. Currently, there are a multitude of algorithms that can be used to perform TD control, including Sarsa, $Q$-learning, and Expected Sarsa. These methods are often studied in the one-step case, but they can be extended across multiple time steps to achieve better performance. Each of these algorithms is seemingly distinct, and no one dominates the others for all problems. In this paper, we study a new multi-step action-value algorithm called $Q(σ)$ which unifies and generalizes these existing algorithms, while subsuming them as special cases. A new parameter, $σ$, is introduced to allow the degree of sampling performed by the algorithm at each step during its backup to be continuously varied, with Sarsa existing at one extreme (full sampling), and Expected Sarsa existing at the other (pure expectation). $Q(σ)$ is generally applicable to both on- and off-policy learning, but in this work we focus on experiments in the on-policy case. Our results show that an intermediate value of $σ$, which results in a mixture of the existing algorithms, performs better than either extreme. The mixture can also be varied dynamically which can result in even greater performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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