arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to David Abel.
The reward hypothesis posits that, "all of what we mean by goals and purposes can be well thought of as maximization of the expected value of the cumulative sum of a received scalar signal (reward)." We aim to fully settle this hypothesis. This will not conclude with a simple affirmation or refutation, but rather specify completely the implicit requirements on goals and purposes under which the hypothesis holds.
When has an agent converged? Standard models of the reinforcement learning problem give rise to a straightforward definition of convergence: An agent converges when its behavior or performance in each environment state stops changing. However, as we shift the focus of our learning problem from the environment's state to the agent's state, the concept of an agent's convergence becomes significantly less clear. In this paper, we propose two complementary accounts of agent convergence in a framing of the reinforcement learning problem that centers around bounded agents. The first view says that a bounded agent has converged when the minimal number of states needed to describe the agent's future behavior cannot decrease. The second view says that a bounded agent has converged just when the agent's performance only changes if the agent's internal state changes. We establish basic properties of these two definitions, show that they accommodate typical views of convergence in standard settings, and prove several facts about their nature and relationship. We take these perspectives, definitions, and analysis to bring clarity to a central idea of the field.
One of the most striking features of human cognition is the capacity to plan. Two aspects of human planning stand out: its efficiency and flexibility. Efficiency is especially impressive because plans must often be made in complex environments, and yet people successfully plan solutions to myriad everyday problems despite having limited cognitive resources. Standard accounts in psychology, economics, and artificial intelligence have suggested human planning succeeds because people have a complete representation of a task and then use heuristics to plan future actions in that representation. However, this approach generally assumes that task representations are fixed. Here, we propose that task representations can be controlled and that such control provides opportunities to quickly simplify problems and more easily reason about them. We propose a computational account of this simplification process and, in a series of pre-registered behavioral experiments, show that it is subject to online cognitive control and that people optimally balance the complexity of a task representation and its utility for planning and acting. These results demonstrate how strategically perceiving and conceiving problems facilitates the effective use of limited cognitive resources.
Meta-gradient methods (Xu et al., 2018; Zahavy et al., 2020) offer a promising solution to the problem of hyperparameter selection and adaptation in non-stationary reinforcement learning problems. However, the properties of meta-gradients in such environments have not been systematically studied. In this work, we bring new clarity to meta-gradients in non-stationary environments. Concretely, we ask: (i) how much information should be given to the learned optimizers, so as to enable faster adaptation and generalization over a lifetime, (ii) what meta-optimizer functions are learned in this process, and (iii) whether meta-gradient methods provide a bigger advantage in highly non-stationary environments. To study the effect of information provided to the meta-optimizer, as in recent works (Flennerhag et al., 2021; Almeida et al., 2021), we replace the tuned meta-parameters of fixed update rules with learned meta-parameter functions of selected context features. The context features carry information about agent performance and changes in the environment and hence can inform learned meta-parameter schedules. We find that adding more contextual information is generally beneficial, leading to faster adaptation of meta-parameter values and increased performance over a lifetime. We support these results with a qualitative analysis of resulting meta-parameter schedules and learned functions of context features. Lastly, we find that without context, meta-gradients do not provide a consistent advantage over the baseline in highly non-stationary environments. Our findings suggest that contextualizing meta-gradients can play a pivotal role in extracting high performance from meta-gradients in non-stationary settings.
Reinforcement learning defines the problem facing agents that learn to make good decisions through action and observation alone. To be effective problem solvers, such agents must efficiently explore vast worlds, assign credit from delayed feedback, and generalize to new experiences, all while making use of limited data, computational resources, and perceptual bandwidth. Abstraction is essential to all of these endeavors. Through abstraction, agents can form concise models of their environment that support the many practices required of a rational, adaptive decision maker. In this dissertation, I present a theory of abstraction in reinforcement learning. I first offer three desiderata for functions that carry out the process of abstraction: they should 1) preserve representation of near-optimal behavior, 2) be learned and constructed efficiently, and 3) lower planning or learning time. I then present a suite of new algorithms and analysis that clarify how agents can learn to abstract according to these desiderata. Collectively, these results provide a partial path toward the discovery and use of abstraction that minimizes the complexity of effective reinforcement learning.
Reward is the driving force for reinforcement-learning agents. This paper is dedicated to understanding the expressivity of reward as a way to capture tasks that we would want an agent to perform. We frame this study around three new abstract notions of "task" that might be desirable: (1) a set of acceptable behaviors, (2) a partial ordering over behaviors, or (3) a partial ordering over trajectories. Our main results prove that while reward can express many of these tasks, there exist instances of each task type that no Markov reward function can capture. We then provide a set of polynomial-time algorithms that construct a Markov reward function that allows an agent to optimize tasks of each of these three types, and correctly determine when no such reward function exists. We conclude with an empirical study that corroborates and illustrates our theoretical findings.
Reinforcement learning is hard in general. Yet, in many specific environments, learning is easy. What makes learning easy in one environment, but difficult in another? We address this question by proposing a simple measure of reinforcement-learning hardness called the bad-policy density. This quantity measures the fraction of the deterministic stationary policy space that is below a desired threshold in value. We prove that this simple quantity has many properties one would expect of a measure of learning hardness. Further, we prove it is NP-hard to compute the measure in general, but there are paths to polynomial-time approximation. We conclude by summarizing potential directions and uses for this measure.
We consider the problem of knowledge transfer when an agent is facing a series of Reinforcement Learning (RL) tasks. We introduce a novel metric between Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) and establish that close MDPs have close optimal value functions. Formally, the optimal value functions are Lipschitz continuous with respect to the tasks space. These theoretical results lead us to a value-transfer method for Lifelong RL, which we use to build a PAC-MDP algorithm with improved convergence rate. Further, we show the method to experience no negative transfer with high probability. We illustrate the benefits of the method in Lifelong RL experiments.
Off-policy multi-step reinforcement learning algorithms consist of conservative and non-conservative algorithms: the former actively cut traces, whereas the latter do not. Recently, Munos et al. (2016) proved the convergence of conservative algorithms to an optimal Q-function. In contrast, non-conservative algorithms are thought to be unsafe and have a limited or no theoretical guarantee. Nonetheless, recent studies have shown that non-conservative algorithms empirically outperform conservative ones. Motivated by the empirical results and the lack of theory, we carry out theoretical analyses of Peng's Q($λ$), a representative example of non-conservative algorithms. We prove that it also converges to an optimal policy provided that the behavior policy slowly tracks a greedy policy in a way similar to conservative policy iteration. Such a result has been conjectured to be true but has not been proven. We also experiment with Peng's Q($λ$) in complex continuous control tasks, confirming that Peng's Q($λ$) often outperforms conservative algorithms despite its simplicity. These results indicate that Peng's Q($λ$), which was thought to be unsafe, is a theoretically-sound and practically effective algorithm.
Reinforcement learning algorithms usually assume that all actions are always available to an agent. However, both people and animals understand the general link between the features of their environment and the actions that are feasible. Gibson (1977) coined the term "affordances" to describe the fact that certain states enable an agent to do certain actions, in the context of embodied agents. In this paper, we develop a theory of affordances for agents who learn and plan in Markov Decision Processes. Affordances play a dual role in this case. On one hand, they allow faster planning, by reducing the number of actions available in any given situation. On the other hand, they facilitate more efficient and precise learning of transition models from data, especially when such models require function approximation. We establish these properties through theoretical results as well as illustrative examples. We also propose an approach to learn affordances and use it to estimate transition models that are simpler and generalize better.
An agent with an inaccurate model of its environment faces a difficult choice: it can ignore the errors in its model and act in the real world in whatever way it determines is optimal with respect to its model. Alternatively, it can take a more conservative stance and eschew its model in favor of optimizing its behavior solely via real-world interaction. This latter approach can be exceedingly slow to learn from experience, while the former can lead to "planner overfitting" - aspects of the agent's behavior are optimized to exploit errors in its model. This paper explores an intermediate position in which the planner seeks to avoid overfitting through a kind of regularization of the plans it considers. We present three different approaches that demonstrably mitigate planner overfitting in reinforcement-learning environments.
Planning is useful. It lets people take actions that have desirable long-term consequences. But, planning is hard. It requires thinking about consequences, which consumes limited computational and cognitive resources. Thus, people should plan their actions, but they should also be smart about how they deploy resources used for planning their actions. Put another way, people should also "plan their plans". Here, we formulate this aspect of planning as a meta-reasoning problem and formalize it in terms of a recursive Bellman objective that incorporates both task rewards and information-theoretic planning costs. Our account makes quantitative predictions about how people should plan and meta-plan as a function of the overall structure of a task, which we test in two experiments with human participants. We find that people's reaction times reflect a planned use of information processing, consistent with our account. This formulation of planning to plan provides new insight into the function of hierarchical planning, state abstraction, and cognitive control in both humans and machines.
Can simple algorithms with a good representation solve challenging reinforcement learning problems? In this work, we answer this question in the affirmative, where we take "simple learning algorithm" to be tabular Q-Learning, the "good representations" to be a learned state abstraction, and "challenging problems" to be continuous control tasks. Our main contribution is a learning algorithm that abstracts a continuous state-space into a discrete one. We transfer this learned representation to unseen problems to enable effective learning. We provide theory showing that learned abstractions maintain a bounded value loss, and we report experiments showing that the abstractions empower tabular Q-Learning to learn efficiently in unseen tasks.
We formalize the problem of selecting the optimal set of options for planning as that of computing the smallest set of options so that planning converges in less than a given maximum of value-iteration passes. We first show that the problem is NP-hard, even if the task is constrained to be deterministic---the first such complexity result for option discovery. We then present the first polynomial-time boundedly suboptimal approximation algorithm for this setting, and empirically evaluate it against both the optimal options and a representative collection of heuristic approaches in simple grid-based domains including the classic four-rooms problem.
One of the main challenges in reinforcement learning is solving tasks with sparse reward. We show that the difficulty of discovering a distant rewarding state in an MDP is bounded by the expected cover time of a random walk over the graph induced by the MDP's transition dynamics. We therefore propose to accelerate exploration by constructing options that minimize cover time. The proposed algorithm finds an option which provably diminishes the expected number of steps to visit every state in the state space by a uniform random walk. We show empirically that the proposed algorithm improves the learning time in several domains with sparse rewards.
Deep neural networks are able to solve tasks across a variety of domains and modalities of data. Despite many empirical successes, we lack the ability to clearly understand and interpret the learned internal mechanisms that contribute to such effective behaviors or, more critically, failure modes. In this work, we present a general method for visualizing an arbitrary neural network's inner mechanisms and their power and limitations. Our dataset-centric method produces visualizations of how a trained network attends to components of its inputs. The computed "attention masks" support improved interpretability by highlighting which input attributes are critical in determining output. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on a variety of deep neural network architectures in domains from computer vision, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning. The primary contribution of our approach is an interpretable visualization of attention that provides unique insights into the network's underlying decision-making process irrespective of the data modality.
Providing Reinforcement Learning agents with expert advice can dramatically improve various aspects of learning. Prior work has developed teaching protocols that enable agents to learn efficiently in complex environments; many of these methods tailor the teacher's guidance to agents with a particular representation or underlying learning scheme, offering effective but specialized teaching procedures. In this work, we explore protocol programs, an agent-agnostic schema for Human-in-the-Loop Reinforcement Learning. Our goal is to incorporate the beneficial properties of a human teacher into Reinforcement Learning without making strong assumptions about the inner workings of the agent. We show how to represent existing approaches such as action pruning, reward shaping, and training in simulation as special cases of our schema and conduct preliminary experiments on simple domains.
The combinatorial explosion that plagues planning and reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms can be moderated using state abstraction. Prohibitively large task representations can be condensed such that essential information is preserved, and consequently, solutions are tractably computable. However, exact abstractions, which treat only fully-identical situations as equivalent, fail to present opportunities for abstraction in environments where no two situations are exactly alike. In this work, we investigate approximate state abstractions, which treat nearly-identical situations as equivalent. We present theoretical guarantees of the quality of behaviors derived from four types of approximate abstractions. Additionally, we empirically demonstrate that approximate abstractions lead to reduction in task complexity and bounded loss of optimality of behavior in a variety of environments.