(Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-Learning link by Richard Möhn 976 days ago | Jessica Taylor and Patrick LaVictoire like this | 5 comments

 by Richard Möhn 863 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 963 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 954 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 906 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 871 days ago | link Some new results here: Questions on the (Non-)Interruptibility of Sarsa(λ) and Q-learning. reply

### NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

[Note: This comment is three
 by Ryan Carey on A brief note on factoring out certain variables | 0 likes

There should be a chat icon
 by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 0 likes

Apparently "You must be
 by Jessica Taylor on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

There is a replacement for
 by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

Regarding the physical
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think that we should expect
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think I understand your
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

This seems like a hack. The
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

After thinking some more,
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yes, I think that we're
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

My intuition is that it must
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

To first approximation, a
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Actually, I *am* including
 by Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yeah, when I went back and
 by Alex Appel on Optimal and Causal Counterfactual Worlds | 0 likes

> Well, we could give up on
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes