Paper detail

The Effect of Multi-step Methods on Overestimation in Deep Reinforcement Learning

Multi-step (also called n-step) methods in reinforcement learning (RL) have been shown to be more efficient than the 1-step method due to faster propagation of the reward signal, both theoretically and empirically, in tasks exploiting tabular representation of the value-function. Recently, research in Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) also shows that multi-step methods improve learning speed and final performance in applications where the value-function and policy are represented with deep neural networks. However, there is a lack of understanding about what is actually contributing to the boost of performance. In this work, we analyze the effect of multi-step methods on alleviating the overestimation problem in DRL, where multi-step experiences are sampled from a replay buffer. Specifically building on top of Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG), we propose Multi-step DDPG (MDDPG), where different step sizes are manually set, and its variant called Mixed Multi-step DDPG (MMDDPG) where an average over different multi-step backups is used as update target of Q-value function. Empirically, we show that both MDDPG and MMDDPG are significantly less affected by the overestimation problem than DDPG with 1-step backup, which consequently results in better final performance and learning speed. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different ways to do multi-step expansion in order to reduce approximation error, and expose the tradeoff between overestimation and underestimation that underlies offline multi-step methods. Finally, we compare the computational resource needs of Twin Delayed Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (TD3), a state-of-art algorithm proposed to address overestimation in actor-critic methods, and our proposed methods, since they show comparable final performance and learning speed.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.