Mitigating Value Hallucination in Dyna-Style Planning via Multistep Predecessor Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyna-style reinforcement learning (RL) agents improve sample efficiency over model-free RL agents by updating the value function with simulated experience generated by an environment model. However, it is often difficult to learn accurate models of environment dynamics, and even small errors may result in failure of Dyna agents. In this paper, we highlight that one potential cause of that failure is bootstrapping off of the values of simulated states, and introduce a new Dyna algorithm to avoid this failure. We discuss a design space of Dyna algorithms, based on using successor or predecessor models---simulating forwards or backwards---and using one-step or multi-step updates. Three of the variants have been explored, but surprisingly the fourth variant has not: using predecessor models with multi-step updates. We present the \emph{Hallucinated Value Hypothesis} (HVH): updating the values of real states towards values of simulated states can result in misleading action values which adversely affect the control policy. We discuss and evaluate all four variants of Dyna amongst which three update real states toward simulated states --- so potentially toward hallucinated values --- and our proposed approach, which does not. The experimental results provide evidence for the HVH, and suggest that using predecessor models with multi-step updates is a fruitful direction toward developing Dyna algorithms that are more robust to model error.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".