Intelligent Agent Foundations Forumsign up / log in
(Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-Learning
link by Richard Möhn 523 days ago | Jessica Taylor and Patrick LaVictoire like this | 5 comments


by Richard Möhn 410 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 510 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 501 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 453 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:

  1. Somewhere in ≤ 1.0. – Time steps are being counted.
  2. Crosses 1.0. Noodles around beyond 1.0. – Time steps not counted.
  3. Crosses back into ≤ 1.0. – Time steps counted again.

Whereas the interrupted agent IA would behave like this:

  1. Somewhere in ≤ 1.0. – Time steps are being counted.
  2. 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 418 days ago | link

Some new results here: Questions on the (Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-learning.

reply



NEW LINKS

NEW POSTS

NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

I think that in that case,
by Alex Appel on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 1 like

Two minor comments. First,
by Sam Eisenstat on No Constant Distribution Can be a Logical Inductor | 1 like

A: While that is a really
by Alex Appel on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

> The true reason to do
by Jessica Taylor on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

A few comments. Traps are
by Vadim Kosoy on Musings on Exploration | 1 like

I'm not convinced exploration
by Abram Demski on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

Update: This isn't really an
by Alex Appel on A Difficulty With Density-Zero Exploration | 0 likes

If you drop the
by Alex Appel on Distributed Cooperation | 1 like

Cool! I'm happy to see this
by Abram Demski on Distributed Cooperation | 0 likes

Caveat: The version of EDT
by 258 on In memoryless Cartesian environments, every UDT po... | 2 likes

[Delegative Reinforcement
by Vadim Kosoy on Stable Pointers to Value II: Environmental Goals | 1 like

Intermediate update: The
by Alex Appel on Further Progress on a Bayesian Version of Logical ... | 0 likes

Since Briggs [1] shows that
by 258 on In memoryless Cartesian environments, every UDT po... | 2 likes

This doesn't quite work. The
by Nisan Stiennon on Logical counterfactuals and differential privacy | 0 likes

I at first didn't understand
by Sam Eisenstat on An Untrollable Mathematician | 1 like

RSS

Privacy & Terms