(Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-Learning link by Richard Möhn 309 days ago | Jessica Taylor and Patrick LaVictoire like this | 5 comments

 by Richard Möhn 196 days ago | Patrick LaVictoire likes this | link Second, completely revised version of the report with more data and fancy plots: Questions on the (Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-learning reply
 by Patrick LaVictoire 296 days ago | link Nice! One thing that might be useful for context: what’s the theoretical correct amount of time that you would expect an algorithm to spend on the right vs. the left if the session gets interrupted each time it goes 1 unit to the right? (I feel like there should be a pretty straightforward way to calculate the heuristic version where the movement is just Brownian motion that gets interrupted early if it hits +1.) reply
 by Richard Möhn 287 days ago | link Thanks for the comment! I will look into it after working on another issue that Stuart Armstrong pointed out to me. reply
 by Richard Möhn 239 days ago | link Originally, I counted all timesteps spent in interval $$\left[-1,0\right[$$ and all timesteps spent in interval $$\left[0,1\right]$$. As Stuart Armstrong pointed out, this might make even a perfectly interruptible learner look like it’s influenced by interruptions. To understand this, consider the following example. The uninterrupted agent UA could behave like this: Somewhere in ≤ 1.0. – Time steps are being counted. Crosses 1.0. Noodles around beyond 1.0. – Time steps not counted. Crosses back into ≤ 1.0. – Time steps counted again. Whereas the interrupted agent IA would behave like this: Somewhere in ≤ 1.0. – Time steps are being counted. Crosses 1.0. No more time steps counted. So even if IA behaved the same as UA before the cross, UA would have extra steps from stage 3 and thus appear less biased towards the left. As an alternative to using Brownian motion, Patrick suggested to stop counting once the cart crosses $$1.0$$. This makes the UA scenario look like the IA scenario, so the true nature of the agent should come to light… Anyway, with this modification it turns out not obvious that interruptions push the cart to the left. I will start looking more sharply. reply
 by Richard Möhn 204 days ago | link Some new results here: Questions on the (Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-learning. reply

### NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

Note that the problem with
 by Vadim Kosoy on Open Problems Regarding Counterfactuals: An Introd... | 0 likes

Typos on page 5: *
 by Vadim Kosoy on Open Problems Regarding Counterfactuals: An Introd... | 0 likes

Ah, you're right. So gain
 by Abram Demski on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 0 likes

> Do you have ideas for how
 by Jessica Taylor on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

I think I understand what
 by Wei Dai on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

>You don’t have to solve
 by Wei Dai on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

Your confusion is because you
 by Vadim Kosoy on Delegative Inverse Reinforcement Learning | 0 likes

My confusion is the
 by Tom Everitt on Delegative Inverse Reinforcement Learning | 0 likes

> First of all, it seems to
 by Abram Demski on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 0 likes

> figure out what my values
 by Vladimir Slepnev on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

I agree that selection bias
 by Jessica Taylor on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

>It seems quite plausible
 by Wei Dai on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

> defending against this type
 by Paul Christiano on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

2. I think that we can avoid
 by Paul Christiano on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes

I hope you stay engaged with
 by Wei Dai on Autopoietic systems and difficulty of AGI alignmen... | 0 likes