Adapting to Reward Progressivity via Spectral Reinforcement Learning

1 INTRODUCTION . In decision making tasks involving compounding returns , such as stock market investing , it is common for the rewards received by the agent to increase in magnitude over time . An investor that starts out with little capital will achieve relatively small profits or losses early on , but if they are successful , their capital – and hence their potential profits and losses – will gradually increase . This property also arises in many games settings . For example , in the Atari game Video Pinball , the player can increase a “ bonus multiplier ” that increases the score paid per bumper hit . Since the bonus multiplier does not reset until the player dies , the rewards typically increase with time . In this paper , we refer to any task exhibiting this phenomenon as a progressive reward task . We hypothesise that reward progressivity may be problematic for value-based deep reinforcement learning agents . Our rationale is that the temporal difference errors that arise under such algorithms typically scale with the magnitude of the training targets . Accordingly , experience collected from states with large expected returns may dominate training , causing the agent ’ s performance to degrade in other states . While this is rational in one sense – generally , it is more important to make accurate decisions in high-stakes situations – it is potentially harmful on progressive reward tasks . This is because , on progressive reward tasks , it may be necessary for the agent to perform well in relatively unrewarding regions before it can reach more rewarding regions . For example , in stock market investing , an investor can only reach states where they have large capital if they first perform well with small capital . Note too that the rewards need not be strictly progressive for this problem to arise ; all that is needed is for the rewards to be progressive over some extended period . Algorithms that clip the reward , such as DQN ( Mnih et al. , 2015 ) , are less susceptible to this problem , because they do not perceive increases in reward magnitude beyond the clipping point . However , it is straightforward to construct examples where reward clipping masks the optimal solution . For example , in Bowling , clipping the rewards to [ -1 , 1 ] makes bowling a strike appear no better than hitting a single pin ( Pohlen et al. , 2018 ) . While subsequent approaches make learning feasible without reward clipping ( van Hasselt et al. , 2016 ; Pohlen et al. , 2018 ) , we show in Section 3 that these methods are negatively impacted by strong reward progressivity . Motivated by this , we seek an algorithm that is capable of learning from unclipped rewards , while mitigating the negative impact that large rewards have on the agent ’ s ability to learn in less rewarding regions of the task . To meet this aim , we propose Spectral DQN . Under this approach , rewards are decomposed into a multidimensional spectral reward , where each component is bound to [ -1 , 1 ] . The upper frequencies of the spectrum activate only when large magnitude rewards are received . For example , in Video Pinball , the lowest frequency activates on any score , while the upper frequencies only activate when the player has accumulated a large bonus multiplier . The bounded nature of the spectral rewards allows the agent to learn expected spectral returns without instability arising from large training targets . Meanwhile , the full , unclipped expected return can be recovered by summing across the return spectrum . ( The full , technical definitions of these terms are provided in Section 4 ) . In terms of addressing reward progressivity , a key advantage of this approach is that it allows us to balance the training loss and prevent the upper frequencies from receiving undue weight . To test whether this approach helps mitigate the impact of reward progressivity , we perform two set of experiments : First , we apply Spectral DQN to two domains that we specifically designed to exhibit strong reward progressivity . While previous methods struggle on these tasks , failing to learn almost anything at all in the more extreme domain , Spectral DQN performs markedly better , making considerable progress on both tasks . Next , we apply our approach to a less constructed set of tasks ; namely , 6 standard Atari games . Only some of these games exhibit reward progressivity , and none of them nearly so strongly as the extreme domains from earlier . While Spectral DQN does not outperform the benchmarks as noticeably in these domains ( it is beaten by one of the benchmarks in a single game , but comfortably outperforms both benchmarks in three games ) , the results clearly show that Spectral DQN is not overfit to constructed domains . Moreover , since its outperformance in some of the games can not be attributed solely to reward progressivity , it appears that the approach may offer additional advantages , as explained later in our analysis of the results . 2 PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO HANDLING REWARD VARIABILITY . In the Atari domain , where the DQN algorithm was first evaluated , the agent receives a reward equal to the score increase at each frame . However , since score magnitudes vary greatly across games , DQN clips all rewards to [ −1 , +1 ] . This constrains the size of the training targets so that it is easier to find a step size that performs well across the entire suite of games . While this heuristic turns out to perform well in Atari , a clear downside of the approach is that the agent becomes unable to distinguish large rewards from small rewards . The Pop-Art algorithm ( van Hasselt et al. , 2016 ) offers a more principled solution . It trains from the unclipped reward , while normalising the training targets to have zero mean and unit variance . To ensure that the network ’ s predictions are preserved when the normalisation parameters are updated , the output of the final layer is scaled and shifted by an offsetting amount . Pohlen et al . ( 2018 ) propose an alternative approach to handling unclipped rewards that reduces the variance of the training targets by applying a squashing function , h. The agent learns squashed action-values , Q̃ ( s , a ) = h ( Q ( s , a ) ) , via the transformed Bellman backup : Q̃ ( st , at ) ← Q̃ ( st , at ) + α [ h ( r + γmax a′ h−1 ( Q̃ ( st+1 , a ′ ) ) ) − Q̃ ( st , at ) ] ( 1 ) The authors prove that the transformed Bellman operator remains a contraction provided that both h and h−1 are Lipschitz continuous and γ < 1/LhLh−1 ( where Lh and Lh−1 are the respective Lipschitz constants ) . In their experiments , they use the following squashing function : h ( x ) = sign ( x ) ( √ |x|+ 1− 1 ) + x ( 2 ) where > 0 ensures that h−1 is Lipschitz continuous . For the remainder of this paper , we refer to this approach as target compression . In the Atari domain , Pohlen et al . found target compression to perform significantly better than Pop-Art . It has since become the dominant method for handling unclipped rewards in Atari , with several recent largescale agents ( Kapturowski et al. , 2019 ; Badia et al. , 2020a ; b ) , including the state-of-the-art Agent57 , favouring target compression over Pop-Art . 3 DEMONSTRATING THE PROBLEM OF REWARD PROGRESSIVITY . While both Pop-Art and target compression address reward variance across tasks , making it easier to devise a single learning configuration that performs well across a task suite , they were not designed to address intra-task reward variability . As such , we posit that they are ill-suited to addressing reward progressivity , since it is an intra-task property . To test this claim , we introduce two domains that are designed to exhibit extreme reward progressivity , and thus exacerbate the issue : Ponglantis and Exponential Pong . Ponglantis . In Ponglantis , the game starts out exactly the same as the Atari game Pong , where valued-based deep reinforcement learning methods are known to perform well ( Mnih et al. , 2015 ) . The reward scale in Pong is small relative to most Atari games ; the player receives a +1 reward for hitting the ball past the computer paddle , and a -1 reward if they concede a point . In Ponglantis , however , if the player manages to score 10 points , the task immediately switches to Atlantis , where the reward scale is roughly 1000 times larger . The Atlantis phase ends upon the loss of a single life . Exponential Pong . The game Exponential Pong is identical to regular Pong , except that the rewards are multiplied by 2n , where n is the player ’ s current score . We applied two agents to these games : Pop-Art and DQN+TC , where the latter is a version of DQN that we modified to use target compression and learn from the unclipped reward . The results of this experiment , averaged over 5 seeds , are shown in Figure 1 . ( For full experimental details , see the Appendix . ) To simplify analysis of the Exponential Pong results , we have plotted the unexponentiated scores , i.e . the scores that the agents would have achieved under standard scoring in Pong . For context , the best possible score on standard Pong is +21 , and the worst possible score is -21 . In Exponential Pong , which exhibits the more extreme reward progressivity ( since the reward multiplier can potentially reach 220 ≈ 1 million ) , both agents essentially fail , providing strong support for our hypothesis that reward progressivity can be damaging , at least in extreme cases . In the more moderate case of Ponglantis , Pop-Art fails to make meaningful progress beyond the low-scoring Pong phase of the task . The likely reason for this is that as soon as the agent starts reaching Atlantis and receiving large rewards , the target scaling mechanism employed by Pop-Art starts dividing the training targets by a large factor , heavily dampening the much smaller learning signals arising from the Pong phase of the task . On the other hand , DQN+TC is eventually able to make some progress into the Atlantis phase . The fact that DQN+TC outperforms Pop-Art is consistent with our hypothesis ; while Pop-Art sees the reward scale jump by a factor of≈1000 upon reaching Atlantis , the training targets of DQN+TC jump by a smaller factor , owing to the square root squashing function ( Equation 2 ) . In Appendix B.2 , we perform some additional experiments in Ponglantis to find where the “ cutoff points ” for Pop-Art and DQN+TC lie , i.e . how big the jump in reward magnitude has to be for the agents ’ performances to start deteriorating . Given the above discussion , a natural question to ponder is whether DQN+TC might achieve better performance in Exponential Pong by employing a logarithmic squashing function instead of a square root . Unfortunately though , as Pohlen et al . ( 2018 ) point out to a reviewer of their work ( see https : //openreview.net/forum ? id=BkfPnoActQ ) , a logarithmic transform does not have a Lipschitz continuous inverse , and thus the transformed Bellman is no longer guaranteed to be a contraction .

Summary: This work describes and addresses the issue of _reward progressivity_ in reinforcement learning, where as the task progresses the scale of the reward changes. The authors argue that reward progressivity harms Q-learning when training signals arising from large rewards interfere with those arising from smaller rewards. They propose a form of reward decomposition with an analogous modification to the Q-network output, which together help to ensure that training losses from small and large rewards are similarly scaled. The authors present a handful of experimental results demonstrating that their proposed method outperforms two other reward re-scaling baselines when reward progressivity is an issue and maintains good performance in more standard tasks.