Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double Q-learning is a classical control algorithm that mitigates the maximization bias of Q-learning. To do so, it explicitly trains two independent action-value functions and uses them to decouple action-selection and action-evaluation when computing bootstrap targets. Double DQN adapts target bootstrap decoupling to deep reinforcement learning (RL), but explicitly trains only a single action-value function and does not fully decouple its estimators. Consequently, the two estimators remain correlated, and overestimation persists. In this paper, we introduce Deep Double Q-learning (DDQL), a deep RL algorithm that explicitly trains two Q-functions through Double Q-learning. DDQL stabilizes training through a combination of techniques, including lower replay ratios, longer target network update intervals, and shared layers. Across 57 Atari 2600 games, DDQL improves aggregate performance over Double DQN, outperforming it on 47 games while further reducing overestimation. In addition, we study key design choices when adapting Double Q-learning to deep RL, including the network architecture, replay ratio, and minibatch sampling strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".