An MRP Formulation for Supervised Learning: Generalized Temporal Difference Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditional supervised learning (SL) assumes data points are independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.), which overlooks dependencies in real-world data. Reinforcement learning (RL), in contrast, models dependencies through state transitions. Objectives: This study aims to bridge SL and RL by reformulating SL problems as RL tasks, enabling the application of RL techniques to a wider range of SL scenarios. We aim to model SL data as interconnected, and develop novel temporal difference (TD) algorithms that can accommodate diverse data types. Our objectives are to (1) establish conditions where TD outperforms ordinary least squares (OLS), (2) provide convergence guarantees for the generalized TD algorithm, and (3) validate the approach empirically using synthetic and real-world datasets. Methods: We reformulate traditional SL as a RL problem by modeling data points as a Markov Reward Process (MRP). We then introduce a concept analogous to the inverse link function in generalized linear models, allowing our TD algorithm to handle various data types. Our analysis, grounded in variance estimation, identifies conditions where TD outperforms OLS. We establish a convergence guarantee by conceptualizing the TD update rule as a generalized Bellman operator. Empirical validation begins with synthetic data progressively matching theoretical assumptions to verify our analysis, followed by evaluations on real-world datasets to demonstrate practical utility. Results: Our theoretical analysis shows that TD can outperform OLS in estimation accuracy when data noise is correlated. Our approach generalizes across various loss functions and SL datasets. We prove that the Bellman operator in our TD framework is a contraction, ensuring convergence for both expected and stochastic TD updates. Empirically, TD outperforms SL baselines when data aligns with its assumptions, remains competitive across diverse datasets, and is robust to hyperparameter choices. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that SL can be reformulated as a problem of interconnected data modeled by an MRP, effectively solved using TD learning. Our generalized TD is theoretically sound, with convergence guarantees, and practically effective. It generalizes OLS, offering superior performance on correlated data. This work enables RL techniques to benefit SL tasks, offering a pathway for future advancements.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".