MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399486984 · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2024.3373749

Off-Policy Prediction Learning: An Empirical Study of Online Algorithms

2024· article· en· W4399486984 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDeepMindAlberta Machine Intelligence InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEmpirical researchAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it