Correcting discount-factor mismatch in on-policy policy gradient methods
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
The policy gradient theorem gives a convenient form of the policy gradient in terms of three factors: an action value, a gradient of the action likelihood, and a state distribution involving discounting called the \emph{discounted stationary distribution}. But commonly used on-policy methods based on the policy gradient theorem ignores the discount factor in the state distribution, which is technically incorrect and may even cause degenerate learning behavior in some environments. An existing solution corrects this discrepancy by using $γ^t$ as a factor in the gradient estimate. However, this solution is not widely adopted and does not work well in tasks where the later states are similar to earlier states. We introduce a novel distribution correction to account for the discounted stationary distribution that can be plugged into many existing gradient estimators. Our correction circumvents the performance degradation associated with the $γ^t$ correction with a lower variance. Importantly, compared to the uncorrected estimators, our algorithm provides improved state emphasis to evade suboptimal policies in certain environments and consistently matches or exceeds the original performance on several OpenAI gym and DeepMind suite benchmarks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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