Off-Policy Actor-Critic with Emphatic Weightings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of theoretically-sound policy gradient algorithms exist for the on-policy setting due to the policy gradient theorem, which provides a simplified form for the gradient. The off-policy setting, however, has been less clear due to the existence of multiple objectives and the lack of an explicit off-policy policy gradient theorem. In this work, we unify these objectives into one off-policy objective, and provide a policy gradient theorem for this unified objective. The derivation involves emphatic weightings and interest functions. We show multiple strategies to approximate the gradients, in an algorithm called Actor Critic with Emphatic weightings (ACE). We prove in a counterexample that previous (semi-gradient) off-policy actor-critic methods--particularly Off-Policy Actor-Critic (OffPAC) and Deterministic Policy Gradient (DPG)--converge to the wrong solution whereas ACE finds the optimal solution. We also highlight why these semi-gradient approaches can still perform well in practice, suggesting strategies for variance reduction in ACE. We empirically study several variants of ACE on two classic control environments and an image-based environment designed to illustrate the tradeoffs made by each gradient approximation. We find that by approximating the emphatic weightings directly, ACE performs as well as or better than OffPAC in all settings tested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".