Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A question about the proof #4

Closed
Jarvis-K opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

A question about the proof #4

Jarvis-K opened this issue Feb 25, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@Jarvis-K
Copy link

I am reading about the WQMIX, but I am not sure about the proof in the appendix:
image

Why the $Q_{tot}^\prime \in Q^{mix}$ ? How can I check a construction that in the QMIX family or not?
Would u like to help me figure it out?

@SEUCGX
Copy link

SEUCGX commented Feb 24, 2023

Yes, I have the same problem. This conclusion seems to be unacceptable. Have you solved this problem?

@Jarvis-K
Copy link
Author

Jarvis-K commented Feb 25, 2023

The QMIX family can be easily checked as $\mathcal{Q}^{m i x}:={Q_{t o t} \mid Q_{t o t}(s, \mathbf{u})=f_s(Q_1(s, u_1), \ldots Q_n(s, u_n)), \frac{\partial f_s}{\partial Q_a} \geq 0, Q_a(s, u) \in \mathbb{R}}$.
The
image
ensures the $Q^{mix}$ family. It should be noted that for $\hat{u}$, $Q_{tot}(\hat{u}) \geq Q_{tot}(u)$ for any $u$ and the positive gradient requirements of qmix family will not be violated by increase the $Q_{tot}(\hat{u})$ to a larger value $Q(\hat{u})$ .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants