pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20592 · v1 · pith:IJKP4FFBnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 💻 cs.LG

ReversedQ: Opportunities for Faster Q-Learning in Episodic Online Reinforcement Learning

Sofia R. Miskala-Dinc , Aviva Prins This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 07:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords Q-learningepisodic MDPsposterior samplingmodel-free reinforcement learningvalue function updatesonline RLexploration
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reversing value update order and tuning frequencies plus initialization speeds up Q-learning in episodic MDPs without delayed learning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines model-free Q-learning in finite-horizon episodic Markov Decision Processes that stay the same across episodes. It notes that recent posterior-sampling approaches often insert artificial delays to secure theoretical guarantees, but instead highlights three adjustable parts of the algorithm that can accelerate learning on their own: the sequence of value-function updates, how often those updates occur, and how the value functions start. Starting from an existing method called RandomizedQ, the authors apply these adjustments together to form ReversedQ and measure the effects in repeated trials. The combined changes raise scaled mean cumulative reward from 9.53 percent to 78.78 percent on the Bidirectional Diabolical Combination Lock and from 21.76 percent to 61.81 percent on a chain MDP. These results indicate that straightforward procedural shifts can produce faster online adaptation in stationary episodic settings.

Core claim

In stationary episodic MDPs, Q-learning converges more quickly in practice when the order of value-function updates is reversed, update frequencies are altered, and value-function initialization is changed, as shown by the ReversedQ variant of RandomizedQ that records substantially higher scaled mean cumulative rewards on the Bidirectional Diabolical Combination Lock and chain MDPs.

What carries the argument

The three modifications to RandomizedQ: reversed value-function update order, changed update frequencies, and altered value-function initialization.

Load-bearing premise

The three modifications can be introduced independently of any delayed-learning mechanism while still preserving Q-learning convergence in stationary episodic MDPs.

What would settle it

Re-running the BDCL and chain-MDP experiments and finding that ReversedQ produces no higher or even lower scaled mean cumulative reward than RandomizedQ would show the modifications bring no benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20592 by Aviva Prins, Sofia R. Miskala-Dinc.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Agents face difficulty exploring BDCL as they en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study model-free Q-learning in finite-horizon episodic Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) with stationary dynamics across episodes. We identify a central issue in nascent model-free posterior-sampling works: the reliance on delayed learning in order to prove theoretical guarantees. In particular, we identify three opportunities for faster learning - (i) value-function update order, (ii) update frequencies, and (iii) value-function initialization. Using Wang et al.'s RandomizedQ as a basis, we illustrate these changes and their individual (as well as cumulative) impact in multiple empirical studies. We find that our combined modifications, termed ReversedQ, improve scaled mean cumulative reward compared to RandomizedQ, from 9.53% to 78.78% in the Bidirectional Diabolical Combination Lock (BDCL), and from 21.76% to 61.81% in a chain MDP.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies model-free Q-learning in finite-horizon episodic MDPs with stationary dynamics. It identifies three opportunities for faster learning—value-function update order, update frequencies, and value-function initialization—by modifying RandomizedQ into ReversedQ. These changes are illustrated through empirical studies showing scaled mean cumulative reward improvements from 9.53% to 78.78% on the Bidirectional Diabolical Combination Lock and from 21.76% to 61.81% on a chain MDP.

Significance. If the reported empirical gains prove robust and the modifications preserve convergence to the optimal Q-function, the work could offer practical speed-ups for online episodic RL and clarify when theoretical requirements such as delayed learning can be relaxed. The explicit comparison of individual and combined modifications on two MDPs provides a useful empirical baseline for future studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Introduction: The central premise that the three modifications (update order, frequencies, and initialization) can be introduced independently of delayed learning without invalidating Q-learning convergence is asserted but not analyzed. Standard Q-learning theory requires that every state-action pair be visited infinitely often under appropriate step-size conditions; changing update frequencies or order can alter the effective visitation distribution and risk preventing asymptotic correctness even if short-term rewards improve.
  2. [Empirical evaluation] Empirical evaluation: The performance claims for BDCL and the chain MDP report large gains but provide no information on the number of independent runs, standard errors, hyperparameter search protocol, or statistical significance tests. Without these details the quantitative improvements (9.53% to 78.78% and 21.76% to 61.81%) cannot be assessed for reliability or reproducibility.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'multiple empirical studies' is vague; explicitly naming the two MDPs and the scaled mean cumulative reward metric would improve clarity.
  2. [Experimental setup] Notation: The term 'scaled mean cumulative reward' is used without an explicit definition or reference to its normalization; adding a short equation or sentence in the experimental setup would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Introduction] Introduction: The central premise that the three modifications (update order, frequencies, and initialization) can be introduced independently of delayed learning without invalidating Q-learning convergence is asserted but not analyzed. Standard Q-learning theory requires that every state-action pair be visited infinitely often under appropriate step-size conditions; changing update frequencies or order can alter the effective visitation distribution and risk preventing asymptotic correctness even if short-term rewards improve.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript is primarily empirical and does not contain a formal convergence analysis for the modified schemes. The changes to update order and frequency are designed to operate within the standard episodic visitation pattern of RandomizedQ, preserving infinite visits to all state-action pairs across episodes while only altering intra-episode timing. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the referee's point that a dedicated discussion of the conditions under which asymptotic correctness is retained would strengthen the work. We will add a new subsection in the revised introduction and discussion that explicitly addresses visitation requirements and notes the empirical nature of the current guarantees. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Empirical evaluation] Empirical evaluation: The performance claims for BDCL and the chain MDP report large gains but provide no information on the number of independent runs, standard errors, hyperparameter search protocol, or statistical significance tests. Without these details the quantitative improvements (9.53% to 78.78% and 21.76% to 61.81%) cannot be assessed for reliability or reproducibility.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The original experiments were conducted over 10 independent random seeds with reported means and standard errors, and hyperparameters were selected via a modest grid search over learning rates and exploration parameters. We will expand the experimental section to explicitly state the number of runs, include standard-error bars in all plots, detail the hyperparameter protocol, and add pairwise t-test results confirming statistical significance of the reported gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical performance metrics are direct measurements

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation chain or first-principles predictions. It identifies three empirical opportunities for faster Q-learning and reports direct experimental outcomes (scaled mean cumulative rewards of 9.53% to 78.78% in BDCL and 21.76% to 61.81% in chain MDP) when applying modifications to RandomizedQ. These are measured results from simulations rather than quantities defined in terms of fitted parameters or reduced by construction to inputs. The citation to Wang et al. is external and does not bear load for any claimed derivation. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard MDP assumptions (finite horizon, stationary dynamics, episodic structure) and the correctness of the RandomizedQ baseline; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Finite-horizon episodic MDPs with stationary dynamics across episodes
    Stated in the first sentence of the abstract as the setting under study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5687 in / 1250 out tokens · 25128 ms · 2026-05-21T07:02:21.105395+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We identify three opportunities for faster learning – (i) value-function update order, (ii) update frequencies, and (iii) value-function initialization. ... ReversedQ ... improve scaled mean cumulative reward compared to RandomizedQ, from 9.53% to 78.78% in the BDCL...

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alekh Agarwal, Mikael Henaff, Sham Kakade, and Wen Sun. 2020. Pc-pg: Policy cover directed exploration for provable policy gradient learning.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 13399–13412

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Ian Osband, and Rémi Munos. 2017. Minimax regret bounds for reinforcement learning. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 263–272

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Thomas Jaksch, Ronald Ortner, and Peter Auer. 2010. Near-optimal Regret Bounds for Reinforcement Learning.Journal of Machine Learning Research11 (2010), 1563–1600

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Chi Jin, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Sebastien Bubeck, and Michael I Jordan. 2018. Is Q-learning provably efficient?Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Kober, J

    J. Kober, J. Andrew (Drew) Bagnell, and J. Peters. 2013. Reinforcement Learning in Robotics: A Survey.International Journal of Robotics Research32, 11 (September 2013), 1238 – 1274

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Anubha Mahajan, Shreya Hegde, Ethan Shay, Daniel Wu, and Aviva Prins. 2025. Comparative Analysis of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Policies for Crop Planning Decision Support.AAAI Workshop on Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems Decision-making and Learning (CMASDL)(2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Weichao Mao, Kaiqing Zhang, Ruihao Zhu, David Simchi-Levi, and Tamer Başar

    work page

  8. [8]

    Management Science(2024)

    Model-Free Nonstationary Reinforcement Learning: Near-Optimal Regret and Applications in Multiagent Reinforcement Learning and Inventory Control. Management Science(2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Miskala-Dinc, Amedeo Ercole, and Aviva Prins

    Hiroshi Nonaka, Simon Ambrozak, Sofia R. Miskala-Dinc, Amedeo Ercole, and Aviva Prins. 2025. Efficient Restarts in Non-Stationary Model-Free Reinforcement Learning. InNeurIPS 2025 Workshop: Second Workshop on Aligning Reinforcement Learning Experimentalists and Theorists

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Ian Osband, Daniel Russo, and Benjamin Van Roy. 2013. (More) efficient re- inforcement learning via posterior sampling.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems26 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Ian Osband and Benjamin Van Roy. 2017. Why is posterior sampling better than optimism for reinforcement learning?. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2701–2710

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Daniil Tiapkin, Denis Belomestny, Daniele Calandriello, Eric Moulines, Remi Munos, Alexey Naumov, Pierre Perrault, Michal Valko, and Pierre Ménard. 2023. Model-free posterior sampling via learning rate randomization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 73719–73774

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    He Wang, Xingyu Xu, and Yuejie Chi. 2025. RandomizedQ. Retrieved April 15, 2026 from https://github.com/IrisHeWANG/RandomizedQ Commit: 763723c

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    He Wang, Xingyu Xu, and Yuejie Chi. 2026. Provably Efficient and Agile Ran- domized Q-Learning. InThe 29th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.24005

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Zihan Zhang, Yuxin Chen, Jason Lee, and Simon S Du. 2025. Settling the Sample Complexity of Online Reinforcement Learning.J. ACM72, 3 (2025), 1–63

    work page 2025