An Analysis of Frame-skipping in Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the practice of sequential decision making, agents are often designed to sense state at regular intervals of $d$ time steps, $d > 1$, ignoring state information in between sensing steps. While it is clear that this practice can reduce sensing and compute costs, recent results indicate a further benefit. On many Atari console games, reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms deliver substantially better policies when run with $d > 1$ -- in fact with $d$ even as high as $180$. In this paper, we investigate the role of the parameter $d$ in RL; $d$ is called the "frame-skip" parameter, since states in the Atari domain are images. For evaluating a fixed policy, we observe that under standard conditions, frame-skipping does not affect asymptotic consistency. Depending on other parameters, it can possibly even benefit learning. To use $d > 1$ in the control setting, one must first specify which $d$-step open-loop action sequences can be executed in between sensing steps. We focus on "action-repetition", the common restriction of this choice to $d$-length sequences of the same action. We define a task-dependent quantity called the "price of inertia", in terms of which we upper-bound the loss incurred by action-repetition. We show that this loss may be offset by the gain brought to learning by a smaller task horizon. Our analysis is supported by experiments on different tasks and learning algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".