Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Revisiting Peng's Q(λ) for Modern 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

arxiv 2103.00107 v1 pith:NUZONBMI submitted 2021-02-27 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

Revisiting Peng's Q(λ) for Modern Reinforcement Learning

classification cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML
keywords algorithmsconservativelambdapengnon-conservativepolicybeenlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Off-policy multi-step reinforcement learning algorithms consist of conservative and non-conservative algorithms: the former actively cut traces, whereas the latter do not. Recently, Munos et al. (2016) proved the convergence of conservative algorithms to an optimal Q-function. In contrast, non-conservative algorithms are thought to be unsafe and have a limited or no theoretical guarantee. Nonetheless, recent studies have shown that non-conservative algorithms empirically outperform conservative ones. Motivated by the empirical results and the lack of theory, we carry out theoretical analyses of Peng's Q($\lambda$), a representative example of non-conservative algorithms. We prove that it also converges to an optimal policy provided that the behavior policy slowly tracks a greedy policy in a way similar to conservative policy iteration. Such a result has been conjectured to be true but has not been proven. We also experiment with Peng's Q($\lambda$) in complex continuous control tasks, confirming that Peng's Q($\lambda$) often outperforms conservative algorithms despite its simplicity. These results indicate that Peng's Q($\lambda$), which was thought to be unsafe, is a theoretically-sound and practically effective algorithm.

discussion (0)

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