Emphatic temporal-difference learning (ETD) stabilizes the expected off-policy TD update and changes its projection geometry, but neither property determines constant-stepsize sampled dynamics. We con...
arXiv:2606. 03532v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self on-policy distillation trains a student policy against a teacher derived from its own parameter history, yet the teacher's update schedule -- which governs the \emph{temporal coupling} between teacher and student -- has not been systematically studied as a stability variable.
By Haowei Guo, Baolong Bi, Ruicheng Zhang, Bingqian Sun, Wentao Zhang
The paper introduces a framework for intrinsic‑extrinsic coupling in learning dynamics, defining it via a continuation‑conditioned value of a constrained learning‑state intervention and observation‑relative fibers. It presents an executable finite‑frame classifier‑head that protects current logits while repairing historical margins, and distinguishes local admissibility, intervention value, and complete‑policy performance. Experiments on CLINC‑derived class‑incremental tasks, output distillation with RoBERTa, and SGDW dynamics demonstrate that coupling can produce both positive and negative interactions, and that coordinated content controls can match or exceed development gains while guided allocation reduces cross‑entropy loss compared to standard replay.
By Qinyou Wang
arXiv:2607. 14185v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Feedback-driven loops support iterative improvement in large language models, reinforcement learning, and autonomous discovery, yet their gains often diminish under repeated internal feedback.
By Xuening Wu, Shan Yu, Shenqin Yin
arXiv:2606. 05967v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we study the finite-time behavior of the TD(0) temporal-difference method with linear function approximation (LFA).
By Ziad Kobeissi (L2S), \'Elo\"ise Berthier (U2IS)
The paper presents a theoretical study of Adam in non‑stationary stochastic optimization, distinguishing two regimes: Euclidean tracking under adaptive strong monotonicity and high‑probability projected stationarity for general smooth objectives. It derives finite‑time bounds that decompose into initialization, objective drift, first‑moment tracking error (β₁), and preconditioner perturbation (β₂), and characterizes burn‑in times for constant and step‑decay schedules. The analysis reveals a noise–drift tradeoff, showing that in noise‑dominated settings Adam’s adaptive mechanisms can improve guarantees, while in drift‑dominated settings they may worsen tracking, potentially making vanilla SGD preferable.
By Sharan Sahu, Abir Sarkar, Cameron J. Hogan, Martin T. Wells