-
Quantile Filtered Imitation Learning
Authors:
David Brandfonbrener,
William F. Whitney,
Rajesh Ranganath,
Joan Bruna
Abstract:
We introduce quantile filtered imitation learning (QFIL), a novel policy improvement operator designed for offline reinforcement learning. QFIL performs policy improvement by running imitation learning on a filtered version of the offline dataset. The filtering process removes $ s,a $ pairs whose estimated Q values fall below a given quantile of the pushforward distribution over values induced by…
▽ More
We introduce quantile filtered imitation learning (QFIL), a novel policy improvement operator designed for offline reinforcement learning. QFIL performs policy improvement by running imitation learning on a filtered version of the offline dataset. The filtering process removes $ s,a $ pairs whose estimated Q values fall below a given quantile of the pushforward distribution over values induced by sampling actions from the behavior policy. The definitions of both the pushforward Q distribution and resulting value function quantile are key contributions of our method. We prove that QFIL gives us a safe policy improvement step with function approximation and that the choice of quantile provides a natural hyperparameter to trade off bias and variance of the improvement step. Empirically, we perform a synthetic experiment illustrating how QFIL effectively makes a bias-variance tradeoff and we see that QFIL performs well on the D4RL benchmark.
△ Less
Submitted 1 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Offline RL Without Off-Policy Evaluation
Authors:
David Brandfonbrener,
William F. Whitney,
Rajesh Ranganath,
Joan Bruna
Abstract:
Most prior approaches to offline reinforcement learning (RL) have taken an iterative actor-critic approach involving off-policy evaluation. In this paper we show that simply doing one step of constrained/regularized policy improvement using an on-policy Q estimate of the behavior policy performs surprisingly well. This one-step algorithm beats the previously reported results of iterative algorithm…
▽ More
Most prior approaches to offline reinforcement learning (RL) have taken an iterative actor-critic approach involving off-policy evaluation. In this paper we show that simply doing one step of constrained/regularized policy improvement using an on-policy Q estimate of the behavior policy performs surprisingly well. This one-step algorithm beats the previously reported results of iterative algorithms on a large portion of the D4RL benchmark. The one-step baseline achieves this strong performance while being notably simpler and more robust to hyperparameters than previously proposed iterative algorithms. We argue that the relatively poor performance of iterative approaches is a result of the high variance inherent in doing off-policy evaluation and magnified by the repeated optimization of policies against those estimates. In addition, we hypothesize that the strong performance of the one-step algorithm is due to a combination of favorable structure in the environment and behavior policy.
△ Less
Submitted 3 December, 2021; v1 submitted 16 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Evaluating representations by the complexity of learning low-loss predictors
Authors:
William F. Whitney,
Min Jae Song,
David Brandfonbrener,
Jaan Altosaar,
Kyunghyun Cho
Abstract:
We consider the problem of evaluating representations of data for use in solving a downstream task. We propose to measure the quality of a representation by the complexity of learning a predictor on top of the representation that achieves low loss on a task of interest, and introduce two methods, surplus description length (SDL) and $\varepsilon$ sample complexity ($\varepsilon$SC). In contrast to…
▽ More
We consider the problem of evaluating representations of data for use in solving a downstream task. We propose to measure the quality of a representation by the complexity of learning a predictor on top of the representation that achieves low loss on a task of interest, and introduce two methods, surplus description length (SDL) and $\varepsilon$ sample complexity ($\varepsilon$SC). In contrast to prior methods, which measure the amount of information about the optimal predictor that is present in a specific amount of data, our methods measure the amount of information needed from the data to recover an approximation of the optimal predictor up to a specified tolerance. We present a framework to compare these methods based on plotting the validation loss versus evaluation dataset size (the "loss-data" curve). Existing measures, such as mutual information and minimum description length probes, correspond to slices and integrals along the data axis of the loss-data curve, while ours correspond to slices and integrals along the loss axis. We provide experiments on real data to compare the behavior of each of these methods over datasets of varying size along with a high performance open source library for representation evaluation at https://github.com/willwhitney/reprieve.
△ Less
Submitted 5 February, 2021; v1 submitted 15 September, 2020;
originally announced September 2020.
-
Offline Contextual Bandits with Overparameterized Models
Authors:
David Brandfonbrener,
William F. Whitney,
Rajesh Ranganath,
Joan Bruna
Abstract:
Recent results in supervised learning suggest that while overparameterized models have the capacity to overfit, they in fact generalize quite well. We ask whether the same phenomenon occurs for offline contextual bandits. Our results are mixed. Value-based algorithms benefit from the same generalization behavior as overparameterized supervised learning, but policy-based algorithms do not. We show…
▽ More
Recent results in supervised learning suggest that while overparameterized models have the capacity to overfit, they in fact generalize quite well. We ask whether the same phenomenon occurs for offline contextual bandits. Our results are mixed. Value-based algorithms benefit from the same generalization behavior as overparameterized supervised learning, but policy-based algorithms do not. We show that this discrepancy is due to the \emph{action-stability} of their objectives. An objective is action-stable if there exists a prediction (action-value vector or action distribution) which is optimal no matter which action is observed. While value-based objectives are action-stable, policy-based objectives are unstable. We formally prove upper bounds on the regret of overparameterized value-based learning and lower bounds on the regret for policy-based algorithms. In our experiments with large neural networks, this gap between action-stable value-based objectives and unstable policy-based objectives leads to significant performance differences.
△ Less
Submitted 16 June, 2021; v1 submitted 27 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
Frequentist Regret Bounds for Randomized Least-Squares Value Iteration
Authors:
Andrea Zanette,
David Brandfonbrener,
Emma Brunskill,
Matteo Pirotta,
Alessandro Lazaric
Abstract:
We consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma in finite-horizon reinforcement learning (RL). When the state space is large or continuous, traditional tabular approaches are unfeasible and some form of function approximation is mandatory. In this paper, we introduce an optimistically-initialized variant of the popular randomized least-squares value iteration (RLSVI), a model-free algorithm where…
▽ More
We consider the exploration-exploitation dilemma in finite-horizon reinforcement learning (RL). When the state space is large or continuous, traditional tabular approaches are unfeasible and some form of function approximation is mandatory. In this paper, we introduce an optimistically-initialized variant of the popular randomized least-squares value iteration (RLSVI), a model-free algorithm where exploration is induced by perturbing the least-squares approximation of the action-value function. Under the assumption that the Markov decision process has low-rank transition dynamics, we prove that the frequentist regret of RLSVI is upper-bounded by $\widetilde O(d^2 H^2 \sqrt{T})$ where $ d $ are the feature dimension, $ H $ is the horizon, and $ T $ is the total number of steps. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first frequentist regret analysis for randomized exploration with function approximation.
△ Less
Submitted 8 September, 2023; v1 submitted 1 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
-
Geometric Insights into the Convergence of Nonlinear TD Learning
Authors:
David Brandfonbrener,
Joan Bruna
Abstract:
While there are convergence guarantees for temporal difference (TD) learning when using linear function approximators, the situation for nonlinear models is far less understood, and divergent examples are known. Here we take a first step towards extending theoretical convergence guarantees to TD learning with nonlinear function approximation. More precisely, we consider the expected learning dynam…
▽ More
While there are convergence guarantees for temporal difference (TD) learning when using linear function approximators, the situation for nonlinear models is far less understood, and divergent examples are known. Here we take a first step towards extending theoretical convergence guarantees to TD learning with nonlinear function approximation. More precisely, we consider the expected learning dynamics of the TD(0) algorithm for value estimation. As the step-size converges to zero, these dynamics are defined by a nonlinear ODE which depends on the geometry of the space of function approximators, the structure of the underlying Markov chain, and their interaction. We find a set of function approximators that includes ReLU networks and has geometry amenable to TD learning regardless of environment, so that the solution performs about as well as linear TD in the worst case. Then, we show how environments that are more reversible induce dynamics that are better for TD learning and prove global convergence to the true value function for well-conditioned function approximators. Finally, we generalize a divergent counterexample to a family of divergent problems to demonstrate how the interaction between approximator and environment can go wrong and to motivate the assumptions needed to prove convergence.
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2020; v1 submitted 28 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
