Improving Deep Reinforcement Learning by Reducing the Chain Effect of Value and Policy Churn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks provide Reinforcement Learning (RL) powerful function approximators to address large-scale decision-making problems. However, these approximators introduce challenges due to the non-stationary nature of RL training. One source of the challenges in RL is that output predictions can churn, leading to uncontrolled changes after each batch update for states not included in the batch. Although such a churn phenomenon exists in each step of network training, how churn occurs and impacts RL remains under-explored. In this work, we start by characterizing churn in a view of Generalized Policy Iteration with function approximation, and we discover a chain effect of churn that leads to a cycle where the churns in value estimation and policy improvement compound and bias the learning dynamics throughout the iteration. Further, we concretize the study and focus on the learning issues caused by the chain effect in different settings, including greedy action deviation in value-based methods, trust region violation in proximal policy optimization, and dual bias of policy value in actor-critic methods. We then propose a method to reduce the chain effect across different settings, called Churn Approximated ReductIoN (CHAIN), which can be easily plugged into most existing DRL algorithms. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in both reducing churn and improving learning performance across online and offline, value-based and policy-based RL settings, as well as a scaling setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".