REVIEW 2 cited by
Learning to Optimize for Reinforcement Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In recent years, by leveraging more data, computation, and diverse tasks, learned optimizers have achieved remarkable success in supervised learning, outperforming classical hand-designed optimizers. Reinforcement learning (RL) is essentially different from supervised learning, and in practice, these learned optimizers do not work well even in simple RL tasks. We investigate this phenomenon and identify two issues. First, the agent-gradient distribution is non-independent and identically distributed, leading to inefficient meta-training. Moreover, due to highly stochastic agent-environment interactions, the agent-gradients have high bias and variance, which increases the difficulty of learning an optimizer for RL. We propose pipeline training and a novel optimizer structure with a good inductive bias to address these issues, making it possible to learn an optimizer for reinforcement learning from scratch. We show that, although only trained in toy tasks, our learned optimizer can generalize to unseen complex tasks in Brax.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
How Should We Meta-Learn Reinforcement Learning Algorithms?
A systematic comparison of black-box evolution, neural and symbolic distillation, and LLM-based proposal for meta-learning RL algorithms yields practical recommendations: warm-started LLM proposal is sample-efficient,...
-
ReBRAC-v2: The Return of the King
A fixed-recipe offline RL method combining normalizing-flow actors, categorical critics, staged training, and test-time refinement beats recent flow-based baselines by 22.5 points averaged over ten OGBench categories.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.