Search

Off-policy prediction-learning the value function for one policy from data generated while following another policy-is one of the most challenging problems in reinforcement learning. This article makes two main contributions: 1) it empirically studies 11 off-policy prediction learning algorithms with emphasis on their sensitivity to parameters, learning speed, and asymptotic error and 2) based on the empirical results, it proposes two step-size adaptation methods called and that help the algorithm with the lowest error from the experimental study learn faster. Many off-policy prediction learning algorithms have been proposed in the past decade, but it remains unclear which algorithms learn faster than others. In this article, we empirically compare 11 off-policy prediction learning algorithms with linear function approximation on three small tasks: the Collision task, the task, and the task. The Collision task is a small off-policy problem analogous to that of an autonomous car trying to predict whether it will collide with an obstacle. The and tasks are designed such that learning fast in them is challenging. In the Rooms task, the product of importance sampling ratios can be as large as 2 14 . To control the high variance caused by the product of the importance sampling ratios, step size should be set small, which, in turn, slows down learning. The task is more extreme in that the product of the ratios can become as large as 2 14 × 25 . The algorithms considered are Off-policy TD, five Gradient-TD algorithms, two Emphatic-TD algorithms, Vtrace, and variants of Tree Backup and ABQ that are applicable to the prediction setting. We found that the algorithms' performance is highly affected by the variance induced by the importance sampling ratios. Tree Backup, Vtrace, and ABTDare not affected by the high variance as much as other algorithms, but they restrict the effective bootstrapping parameter in a way that is too limiting for tasks where high variance is not present. We observed that Emphatic TDtends to have lower asymptotic error than other algorithms but might learn more slowly in some cases. Based on the empirical results, we propose two step-size adaptation algorithms, which we collectively refer to as the Ratchet algorithms, with the same underlying idea: keep the step-size parameter as large as possible and ratchet it down only when necessary to avoid overshoot. We show that the Ratchet algorithms are effective by comparing them with other popular step-size adaptation algorithms, such as the Adam optimizer.

We present three new diagnostic prediction problems inspired by classical-conditioning experiments to facilitate research in online prediction learning. Experiments in classical conditioning show that animals such as rabbits, pigeons, and dogs can make long temporal associations that enable multi-step prediction. To replicate this remarkable ability, an agent must construct an internal state representation that summarizes its interaction history. Recurrent neural networks can automatically construct state and learn temporal associations. However, the current training methods are prohibitively expensive for online prediction -continual learning on every time step-which is the focus of this paper. Our proposed problems test the learning capabilities that animals readily exhibit and highlight the limitations of the current recurrent learning methods. While the proposed problems are nontrivial, they are still amenable to extensive testing and analysis in the small-compute regime, thereby enabling researchers to study issues in isolation, ultimately accelerating progress towards scalable online representation learning methods., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

A clinical tool that can diagnose psychiatric illness using functional or structural magnetic resonance (MR) brain images has the potential to greatly assist physicians and improve treatment efficacy. Working toward the goal of automated diagnosis, we propose an approach for automated classification of ADHD and autism based on histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) features extracted from MR brain images, as well as personal characteristic data features. We describe a learning algorithm that can produce effective classifiers for ADHD and autism when run on two large public datasets. The algorithm is able to distinguish ADHD from control with hold-out accuracy of 69.6% (over baseline 55.0%) using personal characteristics and structural brain scan features when trained on the ADHD-200 dataset (769 participants in training set, 171 in test set). It is able to distinguish autism from control with hold-out accuracy of 65.0% (over baseline 51.6%) using functional images with personal characteristic data when trained on the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange (ABIDE) dataset (889 participants in training set, 222 in test set). These results outperform all previously presented methods on both datasets. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of a single automated learning process that can produce classifiers for distinguishing patients vs. controls from brain imaging data with above-chance accuracy on large datasets for two different psychiatric illnesses (ADHD and autism). Working toward clinical applications requires robustness against real-world conditions, including the substantial variability that often exists among data collected at different institutions. It is therefore important that our algorithm was successful with the large ADHD-200 and ABIDE datasets, which include data from hundreds of participants collected at multiple institutions. While the resulting classifiers are not yet clinically relevant, this work shows that there is a signal in the (f)MRI data that a learning algorithm is able to find. We anticipate this will lead to yet more accurate classifiers, over these and other psychiatric disorders, working toward the goal of a clinical tool for high accuracy differential diagnosis., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.