Goto

Collaborating Authors

 learning rate


Sharp asymptotic theory for Q-learning with LDTZ learning rate and its generalization

Bonnerjee, Soham, Lou, Zhipeng, Wu, Wei Biao

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Despite the sustained popularity of Q-learning as a practical tool for policy determination, a majority of relevant theoretical literature deals with either constant ($η_{t}\equiv η$) or polynomially decaying ($η_{t} = ηt^{-α}$) learning schedules. However, it is well known that these choices suffer from either persistent bias or prohibitively slow convergence. In contrast, the recently proposed linear decay to zero (\texttt{LD2Z}: $η_{t,n}=η(1-t/n)$) schedule has shown appreciable empirical performance, but its theoretical and statistical properties remain largely unexplored, especially in the Q-learning setting. We address this gap in the literature by first considering a general class of power-law decay to zero (\texttt{PD2Z}-$ν$: $η_{t,n}=η(1-t/n)^ν$). Proceeding step-by-step, we present a sharp non-asymptotic error bound for Q-learning with \texttt{PD2Z}-$ν$ schedule, which then is used to derive a central limit theory for a new \textit{tail} Polyak-Ruppert averaging estimator. Finally, we also provide a novel time-uniform Gaussian approximation (also known as \textit{strong invariance principle}) for the partial sum process of Q-learning iterates, which facilitates bootstrap-based inference. All our theoretical results are complemented by extensive numerical experiments. Beyond being new theoretical and statistical contributions to the Q-learning literature, our results definitively establish that \texttt{LD2Z} and in general \texttt{PD2Z}-$ν$ achieve a best-of-both-worlds property: they inherit the rapid decay from initialization (characteristic of constant step-sizes) while retaining the asymptotic convergence guarantees (characteristic of polynomially decaying schedules). This dual advantage explains the empirical success of \texttt{LD2Z} while providing practical guidelines for inference through our results.



Stability and Generalization of Push-Sum Based Decentralized Optimization over Directed Graphs

Liang, Yifei, Sun, Yan, Cao, Xiaochun, Shen, Li

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Push-Sum-based decentralized learning enables optimization over directed communication networks, where information exchange may be asymmetric. While convergence properties of such methods are well understood, their finite-iteration stability and generalization behavior remain unclear due to structural bias induced by column-stochastic mixing and asymmetric error propagation. In this work, we develop a unified uniform-stability framework for the Stochastic Gradient Push (SGP) algorithm that captures the effect of directed topology. A key technical ingredient is an imbalance-aware consistency bound for Push-Sum, which controls consensus deviation through two quantities: the stationary distribution imbalance parameter $δ$ and the spectral gap $(1-λ)$ governing mixing speed. This decomposition enables us to disentangle statistical effects from topology-induced bias. We establish finite-iteration stability and optimization guarantees for both convex objectives and non-convex objectives satisfying the Polyak--Łojasiewicz condition. For convex problems, SGP attains excess generalization error of order $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}\!\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{mn}}+\fracγ{δ(1-λ)}+γ\right)$ under step-size schedules, and we characterize the corresponding optimal early stopping time that minimizes this bound. For PŁ objectives, we obtain convex-like optimization and generalization rates with dominant dependence proportional to $κ\!\left(1+\frac{1}{δ(1-λ)}\right)$, revealing a multiplicative coupling between problem conditioning and directed communication topology. Our analysis clarifies when Push-Sum correction is necessary compared with standard decentralized SGD and quantifies how imbalance and mixing jointly shape the best attainable learning performance.




Appendix A Proof of Theorem 2.1

Neural Information Processing Systems

We have the following lemma. Using the notation of Lemma A.1, we have E The third inequality uses the Lipschitz assumption of the loss function. Figure 10 supplements'Relation to disagreement ' at the end of Section 2. It shows an example where the behavior of inconsistency is different from disagreement. All the experiments were done using GPUs (A100 or older). The goal of the experiments reported in Section 3.1 was to find whether/how the predictiveness of The arrows indicate the direction of training becoming longer.