(Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-Learning link by Richard Möhn 249 days ago | Jessica Taylor and Patrick LaVictoire like this | 5 comments

 by Richard Möhn 136 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 236 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 226 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 178 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 144 days ago | link Some new results here: Questions on the (Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-learning. reply

### NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

A few thoughts: I agree
 by Sam Eisenstat on Some Criticisms of the Logical Induction paper | 0 likes

Thanks, so to paraphrase your
 by Wei Dai on Current thoughts on Paul Christano's research agen... | 0 likes

> Why does Paul think that
 by Paul Christiano on Current thoughts on Paul Christano's research agen... | 0 likes

Given that ALBA was not meant
 by Wei Dai on Current thoughts on Paul Christano's research agen... | 0 likes

Thank you for writing this.
 by Wei Dai on Current thoughts on Paul Christano's research agen... | 1 like

I mostly agree with this
 by Paul Christiano on Current thoughts on Paul Christano's research agen... | 2 likes

>From my perspective, I don’t
 by Johannes Treutlein on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 2 likes

 by Vadim Kosoy on Some Criticisms of the Logical Induction paper | 0 likes

 by Vadim Kosoy on Some Criticisms of the Logical Induction paper | 0 likes

 by Vadim Kosoy on Some Criticisms of the Logical Induction paper | 0 likes

Yeah, you're right. This
 by Vadim Kosoy on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 1 like

The non-smoke-loving agents
 by Abram Demski on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 1 like