Martha White

Prabhat Nagarajan, Brett Daley, Martha White et al.

Action-values are foundational to many control algorithms such as Q-learning. Therefore learning action-values efficiently is central to reinforcement learning (RL). However, learning them can be slow, requiring many updates to move values from their initialization, typically near zero, to their true values, which may be far from zero. Moreover, action-value learning algorithms typically update each state-action pair independently, without learning shared value structure across actions within a state. In this paper, we address these inefficiencies by introducing the mean-expansion layer, which accelerates action-value learning by sharing values across actions within a state and by changing the problem from directly learning potentially large action-values to learning a lower-norm representation of them. In deep RL, this layer can be applied as a parameter-free addition to Q-network architectures without altering the underlying algorithm. Applied to deep Q-networks and implicit quantile networks, it improves aggregate performance across 57 Atari games while increasing action gaps and dramatically reducing value overestimation.

Matthew Vandergrift, Esraa Elelimy, Martha White

One goal in reinforcement learning (RL) research is to understand general-purpose sequential decision-making, using benchmark simulators as a proxy for learning in deployment settings. When running experiments, however, the goal of achieving high performance in the simulator can mutate into focusing exclusively on solving the simulator. To achieve high scores, researchers may adopt solutions exclusively meant for solving simulators, rather than learning while the agent is deployed outside a simulator. Solving simulators is also worthy of investigation, but it is a fundamentally different RL research question. In this paper, we argue that RL researchers need to distinguish between two use cases of simulators: solving simulators and using simulators as a proxy for learning in deployment. We first discuss how these two use-cases are importantly different, in terms of constraints on how the agent can use the simulator, which algorithms are appropriate, and which evaluation metrics are appropriate. We then highlight several issues and misleading conclusions that can occur by not making the distinction between these two settings clear, supported with examples and simple experiments. This work is a call to the community to begin clearly distinguishing how they are using simulators in their work, hopefully sparking further discussion on which empirical practices work best in each setting.