Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
16 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ | ||
from OpenAI & UC Berkeley | ||
link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06440.pdf | ||
|
||
Two of the leading approaches for model-free reinforcement learning are policy gradient methods | ||
and Q-learning methods. Q-learning methods can be effective and sample-efficient when they work, | ||
however, it is not well-understood why they work, since empirically, the Q-values they estimate are very | ||
inaccurate. A partial explanation may be that Q-learning methods are secretly implementing policy | ||
gradient updates: we show that there is a precise equivalence between Q-learning and policy gradient | ||
methods in the setting of entropy-regularized reinforcement learning, that “soft” (entropy-regularized) | ||
Q-learning is exactly equivalent to a policy gradient method. We also point out a connection between | ||
Q-learning methods and natural policy gradient methods. | ||
Experimentally, we explore the entropy-regularized versions of Q-learning and policy gradients, and | ||
we find them to perform as well as (or slightly better than) the standard variants on the Atari benchmark. | ||
We also show that the equivalence holds in practical settings by constructing a Q-learning method that | ||
closely matches the learning dynamics of A3C without using a target network or -greedy exploration | ||
schedule. |