Does anybody know if it is is possible to predict the nth state of cellular automata using a function?
I think it might be possible to do on one dimensional automata using differential equations, but I was wondering if there is a formal method out there already.
Thanks
Related
I want to know about the convergence time of Deep Q-learning vs Q-learning when run on same problem. Can anyone give me an idea about the pattern between them? It will be better if it is explained with a graph.
In short, the more complicated the state is, the better DQN is over Q-Learning (by complicated, I mean the number of all possible states). When the state is too complicated, Q-learning becomes nearly impossible to converge due to time and hardware limitation.
note that DQN is in fact a kind of Q-Learning, it uses a neural network to act like a q table, both Q-network and Q-table are used to output a Q value with the state as input. I will continue using Q-learning to refer the simple version with Q-table, DQN with the neural network version
You can't tell convergence time without specifying a specific problem, because it really depends on what you are doing:
For example, if you are doing a simple environment like FrozenLake:https://gym.openai.com/envs/FrozenLake-v0/
Q-learning will converge faster than DQN as long as you have a reasonable reward function.
This is because FrozenLake has only 16 states, Q-Learning's algorithm is just very simple and efficient, so it runs a lot faster than training a neural network.
However, if you are doing something like atari:https://gym.openai.com/envs/Assault-v0/
there are millions of states (note that even a single pixel difference is considered totally new state), Q-Learning requires enumerating all states in Q-table to actually converge (so it will probably require a very large memory plus a very long training time to be able to enumerate and explore all possible states). In fact, I am not sure if it is ever going to converge in some more complicated game, simply because of so many states.
Here is when DQN becomes useful. Neural networks can generalize the states and find a function between state and action (or more precisely state and Q-value). It no longer needs to enumerate, it instead learns information implied in states. Even if you have never explored a certain state in training, as long as your neural network has been trained to learn the relationship on other similar states, it can still generalize and output the Q-value. And therefore it is a lot easier to converge.
As a beginner of deep reinforcement learning, I am confused about why we should use Markov process in reinforcement learning, and what benefits it brings to reinforcement learning. In addition, Markov process requires that under the "known" condition, the "present" has nothing to do with the "future". Why do some deep reinforcement learning algorithms can use RNN and LSTM? Does this violate the Markov prcess's assumption?
The Markov property is used for the math to workout in the optimization process. Do keep in mind however that it is much more generally applicable than you might think it is. For example if in a certain board game you need to know the last three states of the game, this might seem as violating the Markov property; however, if you simply redefine your "state" to be the concatenation of the last three states, now you are back in a MDP.
This assumption says that the current state gives all the information needed about all aspects of the past agent-environment iteraction that makes difference for the future of the system. It is an important definition because you can define the dynamics of the process as p(s',r | s, a). In practice terms, you don't need to look and compute all the previous states of the system to determine the next possible states.
Is there a value-based (Deep) Reinforcement Learning RL algorithm available that is centred fully around learning only the state-value function V(s), rather than to the state-action-value function Q(s,a)?
If not, why not, or, could it easily be implemented?
Any implementations even available in Python, say Pytorch, Tensorflow or even more high-level in RLlib or so?
I ask because
I have a multi-agent problem to simulate where in reality some efficient centralized decision-making that (i) successfully incentivizes truth-telling on behalf of the decentralized agents, and (ii) essentially depends on the value functions of the various actors i (on Vi(si,t+1) for the different achievable post-period states si,t+1 for all actors i), defines the agents' actions. From an individual agents' point of view, the multi-agent nature with gradual learning means the system looks non-stationary as long as training is not finished, and because of the nature of the problem, I'm rather convinced that learning any natural Q(s,a) function for my problem is significantly less efficient than learning simply the terminal value function V(s) from which the centralized mechanism can readily derive the eventual actions for all agents by solving a separate sub-problem based on all agents' values.
The math of the typical DQN with temporal difference learning seems to naturally be adaptable a state-only value based training of a deep network for V(s) instead of the combined Q(s,a). Yet, within the value-based RL subdomain, everybody seems to focus on learning Q(s,a) and I have not found any purely V(s)-learning algos so far (other than analytical & non-deep, traditional Bellman-Equation dynamic programming methods).
I am aware of Dueling DQN (DDQN) but it does not seem to be exactly what I am searching for. 'At least' DDQN has a separate learner for V(s), but overall it still targets to readily learn the Q(s,a) in a decentralized way, which seems not conducive in my case.
This is my first post here, and I came here to discuss or get clarifications on something that I have trouble understanding, namely model-free vs model-based RL methods. I am currently implementing Q-learning, but am not certain I am doing it correctly.
Example: Say I am applying Q-learning to an inverted pendulum, where the reward is given as the absolute distance between the pendulum upward position, and terminal state (or goal state) is defined to be when the pendulum is very close to upward position.
Would this setup mean that I have a model-free or model-based setup? From how I have understood, this would be model-based as I have a model of the environment that is giving me the reward (R=abs(pos-wantedPos)). But then I saw an implementation of this using Q-learning (https://medium.com/#tuzzer/cart-pole-balancing-with-q-learning-b54c6068d947), which is a model-free algorithm. Now I am clueless...
Thankful for all responses.
Vanilla Q-learning is model-free.
The idea behind reinforcement learning is that an agent is trained to learn an optimal policy based on pairs of states and rewards--this is in contrast to trying to model the environment.
If you took a model-based approach, you would be trying to model the environment and ultimately perform value iteration or policy iteration of the Markov decision process.
In reinforcement learning, it is assumed you do not have the MDP, and thus must try to find an optimal policy based on the various rewards you receive from your experiences.
For a longer explanation, check out this post.
I am working on a car following problem and the measurements I am receiving are uncertain ( I know that the noise model is gaussian and it's variance is also known). How do I select my next action in such kind of uncertainty?
Basically how should I change my cost function so that I can optimize my plan by selecting appropriate action?
Vanilla reinforcement learning is meant for Markov decision processes, where it's assumed that you can fully observe the state. Because your states are noisy, you have a Partially observable Markov decision process. Theoretically speaking you should be looking at a different category of RL approaches.
Practically, since you have so much information about the parameters of the uncertainty, you should consider using a Kalman or particle filter to perform state estimation. Then, use the most likely state estimate as the true state in your RL problem. The estimate will be wrong at times, of course, but if you're using a function approximation approach for the value function, the experience can generalize across similar states and you'll be able to learn. The learning performance is going to be proportional to the quality of your state estimate.