An Elementary Proof that Q-learning Converges Almost Surely
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Watkins' and Dayan's Q-learning is a model-free reinforcement learning algorithm that iteratively refines an estimate for the optimal action-value function of an MDP by stochastically "visiting" many state-ation pairs [Watkins and Dayan, 1992]. Variants of the algorithm lie at the heart of numerous recent state-of-the-art achievements in reinforcement learning, including the superhuman Atari-playing deep Q-network [Mnih et al., 2015]. The goal of this paper is to reproduce a precise and (nearly) self-contained proof that Q-learning converges. Much of the available literature leverages powerful theory to obtain highly generalizable results in this vein. However, this approach requires the reader to be familiar with and make many deep connections to different research areas. A student seeking to deepen their understand of Q-learning risks becoming caught in a vicious cycle of "RL-learning Hell". For this reason, we give a complete proof from start to finish using only one external result from the field of stochastic approximation, despite the fact that this minimal dependence on other results comes at the expense of some "shininess".
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 | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".