In real life, success is often contingent upon multiple critical steps that are distant in time from each other and from the final reward.

To make reinforcement learning more sample efficient, we need better credit assignment methods that measure an action's influence on future rewards. Building upon Hindsight Credit Assignment (HCA), we introduce Counterfactual Contribution Analysis (COCOA), a new family of model-based credit assignment algorithms. Our algorithms achieve precise credit assignment by measuring the contribution of actions upon obtaining subsequent rewards, by quantifying a counterfactual query: 'Would the agent still have reached this reward if it had taken another action?'. We show that measuring contributions w.r.t.

To make reinforcement learning more sample efficient, we need better credit assignment methods that measure an action's influence on future rewards. Building upon Hindsight Credit Assignment (HCA), we introduce Counterfactual Contribution Analysis (COCOA), a new family of model-based credit assignment algorithms. Our algorithms achieve precise credit assignment by measuring the contribution of actions upon obtaining subsequent rewards, by quantifying a counterfactual query: 'Would the agent still have reached this reward if it had taken another action?'. We show that measuring contributions w.r.t. We run experiments on a suite of problems specifically designed to evaluate long-term credit assignment capabilities.

In real life, success is often contingent upon multiple critical steps that are distant in time from each other and from the final reward. These critical steps are challenging to identify with traditional reinforcement learning (RL) methods that rely on the Bellman equation for credit assignment. Here, we present a new RL algorithm that uses offline contrastive learning to hone in on these critical steps. This algorithm, which we call Contrastive Retrospection (ConSpec), can be added to any existing RL algorithm. ConSpec learns a set of prototypes for the critical steps in a task by a novel contrastive loss and delivers an intrinsic reward when the current state matches one of the prototypes. The prototypes in ConSpec provide two key benefits for credit assignment: (i) They enable rapid identification of all the critical steps. (ii) They do so in a readily interpretable manner, enabling out-of-distribution generalization when sensory features are altered. Distinct from other contemporary RL approaches to credit assignment, ConSpec takes advantage of the fact that it is easier to retrospectively identify the small set of steps that success is contingent upon (and ignoring other states) than it is to prospectively predict reward at every taken step. ConSpec greatly improves learning in a diverse set of RL tasks. The code is available at the link: https://github.com/sunchipsster1/ConSpec

The DeepMind use simulated environments to test how a "reinforcement learning" is able to complete tasks to receive rewards. You know when you've done something wrong, like putting a glass too close to the edge of the table, only to accidentally knock it off the table a moment later. Over time, you realize the mistake even before disaster strikes. Likewise, you know over years when you made the wrong choice, like choosing to become a manager at Best Buy rather than a pro-ball player, the latter of which would have made you so much more fulfilled. That second problem, how a sense of consequence develops over long stretches, is the subject of recent work by Google's DeepMind unit.

One of my favorite things about deep reinforcement learning is that, unlike supervised learning, it really, really doesn't want to work. Throwing a neural net at a computer vision problem might get you 80% of the way there. Throwing a neural net at an RL problem will probably blow something up in front of your face -- and it will blow up in a different way each time you try. A lot of the biggest challenges in RL revolve around two questions: how we interact with the environment effectively (e.g. In this post, I want to explore a few recent directions in deep RL research that attempt to address these challenges, and do so with particularly elegant parallels to human cognition. This post will begin with a quick review of two canonical deep RL algorithms -- DQN and A3C -- to provide us some intuitions to refer back to, and then jump into a deep dive on a few recent papers and breakthroughs in the categories described above.

One of my favorite things about deep reinforcement learning is that, unlike supervised learning, it really, really doesn't want to work. Throwing a neural net at a computer vision problem might get you 80% of the way there. Throwing a neural net at an RL problem will probably blow something up in front of your face -- and it will blow up in a different way each time you try. A lot of the biggest challenges in RL revolve around two questions: how we interact with the environment effectively (e.g. In this post, I want to explore a few recent directions in deep RL research that attempt to address these challenges, and do so with particularly elegant parallels to human cognition. This post will begin with a quick review of two canonical deep RL algorithms -- DQN and A3C -- to provide us some intuitions to refer back to, and then jump into a deep dive on a few recent papers and breakthroughs in the categories described above.