I’m still not sure how to reconcile your results with the fact that the participants in the procgen contest ended up winning with modifications of our PPO/PPG baselines, rather than Q-learning and other value-based algorithms, whereas your paper suggests that Q-learning performs much better. The contest used 8M timesteps + 200 levels. I assume that your “QL” baseline is pretty similar to widespread DQN implementations.
The Q-Learning baseline is a model-free control of MuZero. So it shares implementation details of MuZero (network architecture, replay ratio, training details etc.) while removing the model-based components of MuZero (details in sec A.2) . Some key differences you’d find vs a typical Q-learning implementation:
Larger network architectures: 10 block ResNet compared to a few conv layers in typical implementations.
Higher sample reuse: When using a reanalyse ratio of 0.95, both MuZero and Q-Learning use each replay buffer sample an average of 20 times. The target network is updated every 100 training steps.
Batch size of 1024 and some smaller details like using categorical reward and value predictions similar to MuZero.
We also have a small model-based component which predicts reward at next time step which lets us decompose the Q(s,a) into reward and value predictions just like MuZero.
I would guess larger networks + higher sample reuse have the biggest effect size compared to standard Q-learning implementations.
The ProcGen competition also might have used the easy difficulty mode compared to the hard difficulty mode used in our paper.
Thanks, glad you liked it, I really like the recent RL directions from OpenAI too! It would be interesting to see the use of model-based RL for the “RL as fine-tuning paradigm”: making large pre-trained models more aligned/goal-directed efficiently by simply searching over a reward function learned from humans.
It’s model based RL because you’re optimizing against the model of the human (ie the reward model). And there are some results at the end on test-time search.
I’m still not sure how to reconcile your results with the fact that the participants in the procgen contest ended up winning with modifications of our PPO/PPG baselines, rather than Q-learning and other value-based algorithms, whereas your paper suggests that Q-learning performs much better. The contest used 8M timesteps + 200 levels. I assume that your “QL” baseline is pretty similar to widespread DQN implementations.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.15332.pdf
https://www.aicrowd.com/challenges/neurips-2020-procgen-competition/leaderboards?challenge_leaderboard_extra_id=470&challenge_round_id=662
Are there implementation level changes that dramatically improve performance of your QL implementation?
(Currently on vacation and I read your paper briefly while traveling, but I may very well have missed something.)
The Q-Learning baseline is a model-free control of MuZero. So it shares implementation details of MuZero (network architecture, replay ratio, training details etc.) while removing the model-based components of MuZero (details in sec A.2) . Some key differences you’d find vs a typical Q-learning implementation:
Larger network architectures: 10 block ResNet compared to a few conv layers in typical implementations.
Higher sample reuse: When using a reanalyse ratio of 0.95, both MuZero and Q-Learning use each replay buffer sample an average of 20 times. The target network is updated every 100 training steps.
Batch size of 1024 and some smaller details like using categorical reward and value predictions similar to MuZero.
We also have a small model-based component which predicts reward at next time step which lets us decompose the Q(s,a) into reward and value predictions just like MuZero.
I would guess larger networks + higher sample reuse have the biggest effect size compared to standard Q-learning implementations.
The ProcGen competition also might have used the easy difficulty mode compared to the hard difficulty mode used in our paper.
Thanks, this is very insightful. BTW, I think your paper is excellent!
Thanks, glad you liked it, I really like the recent RL directions from OpenAI too! It would be interesting to see the use of model-based RL for the “RL as fine-tuning paradigm”: making large pre-trained models more aligned/goal-directed efficiently by simply searching over a reward function learned from humans.
Would you say Learning to Summarize is an example of this? https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01325
It’s model based RL because you’re optimizing against the model of the human (ie the reward model). And there are some results at the end on test-time search.
Or do you have something else in mind?