Off-Policy Prediction Learning: An Empirical Study of Online Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Off-policy prediction-learning the value function for one policy from data generated while following another policy-is one of the most challenging problems in reinforcement learning. This article makes two main contributions: 1) it empirically studies 11 off-policy prediction learning algorithms with emphasis on their sensitivity to parameters, learning speed, and asymptotic error and 2) based on the empirical results, it proposes two step-size adaptation methods called Step-size Ratchet and Soft Step-size Ratchet that help the algorithm with the lowest error from the experimental study learn faster. Many off-policy prediction learning algorithms have been proposed in the past decade, but it remains unclear which algorithms learn faster than others. In this article, we empirically compare 11 off-policy prediction learning algorithms with linear function approximation on three small tasks: the Collision task, the Rooms task, and the High Variance Rooms task. The Collision task is a small off-policy problem analogous to that of an autonomous car trying to predict whether it will collide with an obstacle. The Rooms and High Variance Rooms tasks are designed such that learning fast in them is challenging. In the Rooms task, the product of importance sampling ratios can be as large as . To control the high variance caused by the product of the importance sampling ratios, step size should be set small, which, in turn, slows down learning. The High Variance Rooms task is more extreme in that the product of the ratios can become as large as . The algorithms considered are Off-policy TD( ), five Gradient-TD algorithms, two Emphatic-TD algorithms, Vtrace, and variants of Tree Backup and ABQ that are applicable to the prediction setting. We found that the algorithms' performance is highly affected by the variance induced by the importance sampling ratios. Tree Backup( ), Vtrace( ), and ABTD( ) are not affected by the high variance as much as other algorithms, but they restrict the effective bootstrapping parameter in a way that is too limiting for tasks where high variance is not present. We observed that Emphatic TD( ) tends to have lower asymptotic error than other algorithms but might learn more slowly in some cases. Based on the empirical results, we propose two step-size adaptation algorithms, which we collectively refer to as the Ratchet algorithms, with the same underlying idea: keep the step-size parameter as large as possible and ratchet it down only when necessary to avoid overshoot. We show that the Ratchet algorithms are effective by comparing them with other popular step-size adaptation algorithms, such as the Adam optimizer.
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 | 0.020 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".