SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1809.08923

Target Transfer Q-Learning and Its Convergence Analysis

Abstract

Q-learning is one of the most popular methods in Reinforcement Learning (RL). Transfer Learning aims to utilize the learned knowledge from source tasks to help new tasks to improve the sample complexity of the new tasks. Considering that data collection in RL is both more time and cost consuming and Q-learning converges slowly comparing to supervised learning, different kinds of transfer RL algorithms are designed. However, most of them are heuristic with no theoretical guarantee of the convergence rate. Therefore, it is important for us to clearly understand when and how will transfer learning help RL method and provide the theoretical guarantee for the improvement of the sample complexity. In this paper, we propose to transfer the Q-function learned in the source task to the target of the Q-learning in the new task when certain safe conditions are satisfied. We call this new transfer Q-learning method target transfer Q-Learning. The safe conditions are necessary to avoid the harm to the new tasks and thus ensure the convergence of the algorithm. We study the convergence rate of the target transfer Q-learning. We prove that if the two tasks are similar with respect to the MDPs, the optimal Q-functions in the source and new RL tasks are similar which means the error of the transferred target Q-function in new MDP is small. Also, the convergence rate analysis shows that the target transfer Q-Learning will converge faster than Q-learning if the error of the transferred target Q-function is smaller than the current Q-function in the new task. Based on our theoretical results, we design the safe condition as the Bellman error of the transferred target Q-function is less than the current Q-function. Our experiments are consistent with our theoretical founding and verified the effectiveness of our proposed target transfer Q-learning method.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yue Wang, Qi Meng, Wei Cheng, Yuting Liug, Zhi-Ming Ma, Tie-Yan Liu. 2018-09-21. Target Transfer Q-Learning and Its Convergence Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08923

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG