LGJun 6, 2022
Goal-Space Planning with Subgoal ModelsChunlok Lo, Kevin Roice, Parham Mohammad Panahi et al. · deepmind
This paper investigates a new approach to model-based reinforcement learning using background planning: mixing (approximate) dynamic programming updates and model-free updates, similar to the Dyna architecture. Background planning with learned models is often worse than model-free alternatives, such as Double DQN, even though the former uses significantly more memory and computation. The fundamental problem is that learned models can be inaccurate and often generate invalid states, especially when iterated many steps. In this paper, we avoid this limitation by constraining background planning to a set of (abstract) subgoals and learning only local, subgoal-conditioned models. This goal-space planning (GSP) approach is more computationally efficient, naturally incorporates temporal abstraction for faster long-horizon planning and avoids learning the transition dynamics entirely. We show that our GSP algorithm can propagate value from an abstract space in a manner that helps a variety of base learners learn significantly faster in different domains.
LGMay 1
Forager: a lightweight testbed for continual learning with partial observability in RLSteven Tang, Xinze Xiong, Anna Hakhverdyan et al.
In continual reinforcement learning (CRL), good performance requires never-ending learning, acting, and exploration in a big, partially observable world. Most CRL experiments have focused on loss of plasticity -- the inability to keep learning -- in one-off experiments where some unobservable non-stationarity is added to classic fully observable MDPs. Further, these experiments rarely consider the role of partial observability and the importance of CRL agents that use memory or recurrence. One potential reason for this focus on mitigating loss of plasticity without considering partial observability is that many partially-observable CRL environments are prohibitively expensive. In this paper, we introduce Forager, a light-weight partially-observable CRL environment with a constant memory footprint. We provide a set of experiments and sample tasks demonstrating that Forager is challenging for current CRL agents and yet also allows for in-depth study of those agents. We demonstrate that agents exhibit loss of plasticity, proposed mitigations can help, but that most useful is to leverage state construction. We conclude with a variant of Forager that generates an unending stream of new tasks to learn that clearly highlights the limitations of current CRL agents.
LGJul 12, 2024
Investigating the Interplay of Prioritized Replay and GeneralizationParham Mohammad Panahi, Andrew Patterson, Martha White et al.
Experience replay, the reuse of past data to improve sample efficiency, is ubiquitous in reinforcement learning. Though a variety of smart sampling schemes have been introduced to improve performance, uniform sampling by far remains the most common approach. One exception is Prioritized Experience Replay (PER), where sampling is done proportionally to TD errors, inspired by the success of prioritized sweeping in dynamic programming. The original work on PER showed improvements in Atari, but follow-up results were mixed. In this paper, we investigate several variations on PER, to attempt to understand where and when PER may be useful. Our findings in prediction tasks reveal that while PER can improve value propagation in tabular settings, behavior is significantly different when combined with neural networks. Certain mitigations $-$ like delaying target network updates to control generalization and using estimates of expected TD errors in PER to avoid chasing stochasticity $-$ can avoid large spikes in error with PER and neural networks but generally do not outperform uniform replay. In control tasks, none of the prioritized variants consistently outperform uniform replay. We present new insight into the interaction between prioritization, bootstrapping, and neural networks and propose several improvements for PER in tabular settings and noisy domains.
LGApr 2, 2024
Position: Lifetime tuning is incompatible with continual reinforcement learningGolnaz Mesbahi, Parham Mohammad Panahi, Olya Mastikhina et al.
In continual RL we want agents capable of never-ending learning, and yet our evaluation methodologies do not reflect this. The standard practice in RL is to assume unfettered access to the deployment environment for the full lifetime of the agent. For example, agent designers select the best performing hyperparameters in Atari by testing each for 200 million frames and then reporting results on 200 million frames. In this position paper, we argue and demonstrate the pitfalls of this inappropriate empirical methodology: lifetime tuning. We provide empirical evidence to support our position by testing DQN and SAC across several of continuing and non-stationary environments with two main findings: (1) lifetime tuning does not allow us to identify algorithms that work well for continual learning -- all algorithms equally succeed; (2) recently developed continual RL algorithms outperform standard non-continual algorithms when tuning is limited to a fraction of the agent's lifetime. The goal of this paper is to provide an explanation for why recent progress in continual RL has been mixed and motivate the development of empirical practices that better match the goals of continual RL.
LGJun 3, 2024
A New View on Planning in Online Reinforcement LearningKevin Roice, Parham Mohammad Panahi, Scott M. Jordan et al.
This paper investigates a new approach to model-based reinforcement learning using background planning: mixing (approximate) dynamic programming updates and model-free updates, similar to the Dyna architecture. Background planning with learned models is often worse than model-free alternatives, such as Double DQN, even though the former uses significantly more memory and computation. The fundamental problem is that learned models can be inaccurate and often generate invalid states, especially when iterated many steps. In this paper, we avoid this limitation by constraining background planning to a set of (abstract) subgoals and learning only local, subgoal-conditioned models. This goal-space planning (GSP) approach is more computationally efficient, naturally incorporates temporal abstraction for faster long-horizon planning and avoids learning the transition dynamics entirely. We show that our GSP algorithm can propagate value from an abstract space in a manner that helps a variety of base learners learn significantly faster in different domains.