This paper motivates and develops source traces for temporal difference (TD) learning in the tabular setting. Source traces are like eligibility traces, but model potential histories rather than immediate ones. This allows TD errors to be propagated to potential causal states and leads to faster generalization. Source traces can be thought of as the model-based, backward view of successor representations (SR), and share many of the same benefits. This view, however, suggests several new ideas. First, a TD( @math )-like source learning algorithm is proposed and its convergence is proven. Then, a novel algorithm for learning the source map (or SR matrix) is developed and shown to outperform the previous algorithm. Finally, various approaches to using the source SR model are explored, and it is shown that source traces can be effectively combined with other model-based methods like Dyna and experience replay.
Source learning is also related to Least-Squares TD (LSTD) methods @cite_0 . In the tabular case, LSTD models @math (i.e., @math ) and @math (or scalar multiples thereof), and computes @math as @math . Incremental LSTD (iLSTD) @cite_10 is similar, but learns @math incrementally, thus avoiding matrix inversion. Finally, recursive LSTD (RLS TD) @cite_0 computes @math as does LSTD, but does so by recursive least squares instead of matrix inversion. Of these algorithms, RLS TD---despite being an algorithmic trick---is closest in spirit to source learning; in the tabular case, equation 15 of bradtke1996linear and equation (below) have comparable structure. However, RLS TD maintains its estimate of @math precisely using @math time per step, whereas the TD Source algorithm presented learns @math and @math using @math time per step. As iLSTD has the same time complexity as source learning in the tabular case, we compare them empirically in Section .
@cite_0 @cite_10
2072931156 86816279 2765892966 1597303641
We introduce two new temporal difference (TD) algorithms based on the theory of linear least-squares function approximation. We define an algorithm we call Least-Squares TD (LS TD) for which we prove probability-one convergence when it is used with a function approximator linear in the adjustable parameters. We then define a recursive version of this algorithm, Recursive Least-Square TD (RLS TD). Although these new TD algorithms require more computation per time-step than do Sutton‘s TD(λ) algorithms, they are more efficient in a statistical sense because they extract more information from training experiences. We describe a simulation experiment showing the substantial improvement in learning rate achieved by RLS TD in an example Markov prediction problem. To quantify this improvement, we introduce the TD error variance of a Markov chain, σTD, and experimentally conclude that the convergence rate of a TD algorithm depends linearly on σTD. In addition to converging more rapidly, LS TD and RLS TD do not have control parameters, such as a learning rate parameter, thus eliminating the possibility of achieving poor performance by an unlucky choice of parameters. Approximate policy evaluation with linear function approximation is a commonly arising problem in reinforcement learning, usually solved using temporal difference (TD) algorithms. In this paper we introduce a new variant of linear TD learning, called incremental least-squares TD learning, or iLSTD. This method is more data efficient than conventional TD algorithms such as TD(0) and is more computationally efficient than non-incremental least-squares TD methods such as LSTD (Bradtke & Barto 1996; Boyan 1999). In particular, we show that the per-time-step complexities of iLSTD and TD(0) are O(n), where n is the number of features, whereas that of LSTD is O(n2). This difference can be decisive in modern applications of reinforcement learning where the use of a large number features has proven to be an effective solution strategy. We present empirical comparisons, using the test problem introduced by Boyan (1999), in which iLSTD converges faster than TD(0) and almost as fast as LSTD. Consider the problem of approximating the optimal policy of a Markov decision process (MDP) by sampling state transitions. In contrast to existing reinforcement learning methods that are based on successive approximations to the nonlinear Bellman equation, we propose a Primal-Dual @math Learning method in light of the linear duality between the value and policy. The @math learning method is model-free and makes primal-dual updates to the policy and value vectors as new data are revealed. For infinite-horizon undiscounted Markov decision process with finite state space @math and finite action space @math , the @math learning method finds an @math -optimal policy using the following number of sample transitions @math where @math is an upper bound of mixing times across all policies and @math is a parameter characterizing the range of stationary distributions across policies. The @math learning method also applies to the computational problem of MDP where the transition probabilities and rewards are explicitly given as the input. In the case where each state transition can be sampled in @math time, the @math learning method gives a sublinear-time algorithm for solving the averaged-reward MDP. TD( ) is a popular family of algorithms for approximate policy evaluation in large MDPs. TD( ) works by incrementally updating the value function after each observed transition. It has two major drawbacks: it makes ine cient use of data, and it requires the user to manually tune a stepsize schedule for good performance. For the case of linear value function approximations and = 0, the Least-Squares TD (LSTD) algorithm of Bradtke and Barto (Bradtke and Barto, 1996) eliminates all stepsize parameters and improves data e ciency. This paper extends Bradtke and Barto's work in three signi cant ways. First, it presents a simpler derivation of the LSTD algorithm. Second, it generalizes from = 0 to arbitrary values of ; at the extreme of = 1, the resulting algorithm is shown to be a practical formulation of supervised linear regression. Third, it presents a novel, intuitive interpretation of LSTD as a model-based reinforcement learning technique.