The code of implementation is available in https://github.com/UHIF/PID_AGD.

In reinforcement learning (RL), it is common to apply techniques used broadly in machine learning such as neural network function approximators and momentum-based optimizers. However, such tools were largely developed for supervised learning rather than nonstationary RL, leading practitioners to adopt target networks, clipped policy updates, and other RL-specific implementation tricks to combat this mismatch, rather than directly adapting this toolchain for use in RL. In this paper, we take a different approach and instead address the effect of nonstationarity by adapting the widely used Adam optimiser. We first analyse the impact of nonstationary gradient magnitude --- such as that caused by a change in target network --- on Adam's update size, demonstrating that such a change can lead to large updates and hence sub-optimal performance.To address this, we introduce Adam-Rel.Rather than using the global timestep in the Adam update, Adam-Rel uses the timestep within an epoch, essentially resetting Adam's timestep to 0 after target changes.We demonstrate that this avoids large updates and reduces to learning rate annealing in the absence of such increases in gradient magnitude. Evaluating Adam-Rel in both on-policy and off-policy RL, we demonstrate improved performance in both Atari and Craftax.We then show that increases in gradient norm occur in RL in practice, and examine the differences between our theoretical model and the observed data.

In convex optimization, first-order optimization methods efficiently minimizing function values have been a central subject study since Nesterov's seminal work of 1983. Recently, however, Kim and Fessler's OGM-G and Lee et al.'s FISTA-G have been presented as alternatives that efficiently minimize the gradient magnitude instead. In this paper, we present H-duality, which represents a surprising one-to-one correspondence between methods efficiently minimizing function values and methods efficiently minimizing gradient magnitude.

Neuromorphic computing systems are set to revolutionize energy-constrained robotics by achieving orders-of-magnitude efficiency gains, while enabling native temporal processing. Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) represent a promising algorithmic approach for these systems, yet their application to complex control tasks faces two critical challenges: (1) the non-differentiable nature of spiking neurons necessitates surrogate gradients with unclear optimization properties, and (2) the stateful dynamics of SNNs require training on sequences, which in reinforcement learning (RL) is hindered by limited sequence lengths during early training, preventing the network from bridging its warm-up period. We address these challenges by systematically analyzing surrogate gradient slope settings, showing that shallower slopes increase gradient magnitude in deeper layers but reduce alignment with true gradients. In supervised learning, we find no clear preference for fixed or scheduled slopes. The effect is much more pronounced in RL settings, where shallower slopes or scheduled slopes lead to a 2.1x improvement in both training and final deployed performance. Next, we propose a novel training approach that leverages a privileged guiding policy to bootstrap the learning process, while still exploiting online environment interactions with the spiking policy. Combining our method with an adaptive slope schedule for a real-world drone position control task, we achieve an average return of 400 points, substantially outperforming prior techniques, including Behavioral Cloning and TD3BC, which achieve at most --200 points under the same conditions. This work advances both the theoretical understanding of surrogate gradient learning in SNNs and practical training methodologies for neuromorphic controllers demonstrated in real-world robotic systems.

Multi-task post-training of large language models (LLMs) is typically performed by mixing datasets from different tasks and optimizing them jointly. This approach implicitly assumes that all tasks contribute gradients of similar magnitudes; when this assumption fails, optimization becomes biased toward large-gradient tasks. In this paper, however, we show that this assumption fails in RL post-training: certain tasks produce significantly larger gradients, thus biasing updates toward those tasks. Such gradient imbalance would be justified only if larger gradients implied larger learning gains on the tasks (i.e., larger performance improvements) -- but we find this is not true. Large-gradient tasks can achieve similar or even much lower learning gains than small-gradient ones. Further analyses reveal that these gradient imbalances cannot be explained by typical training statistics such as training rewards or advantages, suggesting that they arise from the inherent differences between tasks. This cautions against naive dataset mixing and calls for future work on principled gradient-level corrections for LLMs.