update?
Some checks failed
Sync from Gitea (main→main, keep workflow) / mirror (push) Has been cancelled
Some checks failed
Sync from Gitea (main→main, keep workflow) / mirror (push) Has been cancelled
This commit is contained in:
@@ -36,3 +36,188 @@ Here: $\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}\log\frac{a_t|\tau_t,id}{p(a_t|\tau_t)}$ represents the a
|
||||
|
||||
$\log \frac{p(o_{t+1}|\tau_t,a_t,id)}{p(o_{t+1}|\tau_t,a_t)}$ represents the observation diversity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- MARL plays a critical role for AI, but is at the early stage
|
||||
- Value factorization enables scalable MARL
|
||||
- Linear factorization sometimes is surprising effective
|
||||
- Non-linear factorization shows promise in offline settings
|
||||
- Parameter sharing plays an important role for deep MARL
|
||||
- Diversity and dynamic parameter sharing can be critical for complex cooperative tasks
|
||||
|
||||
## Challenges and open problems in DRL
|
||||
|
||||
### Overview for Reinforcement Learning Algorithms
|
||||
|
||||
Recall from lecture 2
|
||||
|
||||
Better sample efficiency to less sample efficiency:
|
||||
|
||||
- Model-based
|
||||
- Off-policy/Q-learning
|
||||
- Actor-critic
|
||||
- On-policy/Policy gradient
|
||||
- Evolutionary/Gradient-free
|
||||
|
||||
#### Model-Based
|
||||
|
||||
- Learn the model of the world, then pan using the model
|
||||
- Update model often
|
||||
- Re-plan often
|
||||
|
||||
#### Value-Based
|
||||
|
||||
- Learn the state or state-action value
|
||||
- Act by choosing best action in state
|
||||
- Exploration is a necessary add-on
|
||||
|
||||
#### Policy-based
|
||||
|
||||
- Learn the stochastic policy function that maps state to action
|
||||
- Act by sampling policy
|
||||
- Exploration is baked in
|
||||
|
||||
### Where we are?
|
||||
|
||||
Deep RL has achieved impressive results in games, robotics, control, and decision systems.
|
||||
|
||||
But it is still far from a general, reliable, and efficient learning paradigm.
|
||||
|
||||
Today: what limits Deep RL, what's being worked on, and what's still open.
|
||||
|
||||
### Outline of challenges
|
||||
|
||||
- Offline RL
|
||||
- Multi-Agent complexity
|
||||
- Sample efficiency & data reuse
|
||||
- Stability & reproducibility
|
||||
- Generalization & distribution shift
|
||||
- Scalable model-based RL
|
||||
- Safety
|
||||
- Theory gaps & evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
### Sample inefficiency
|
||||
|
||||
Model-free Deep RL often need million/billion of steps
|
||||
|
||||
- Humans with 15-minute learning tend to outperform DDQN with 115 hours
|
||||
- OpenAI Five for Dota 2: 180 years playing time per day
|
||||
|
||||
Real-world systems can't afford this
|
||||
|
||||
Root causes: high-variance gradients, weak priors, poor credit assignment.
|
||||
|
||||
Open direction for sample efficiency
|
||||
|
||||
- Better data reuse: off-policy learning & replay improvements
|
||||
- Self-supervised representation learning for control (learning from interacting with the environment)
|
||||
- Hybrid model-based/model-free approaches
|
||||
- Transfer & pre-training on large datasets
|
||||
- Knowledge driving-RL: leveraging pre-trained models
|
||||
|
||||
#### Knowledge-Driven RL: Motivation
|
||||
|
||||
Current LLMs are not good at decision making
|
||||
|
||||
Pros: rich knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
Cons: Auto-regressive decoding lack of long turn memory
|
||||
|
||||
Reinforcement learning in decision making
|
||||
|
||||
Pros: Go beyond human intelligence
|
||||
|
||||
Cons: sample inefficiency
|
||||
|
||||
### Instability & the Deadly triad
|
||||
|
||||
Function approximation + boostraping + off-policy learning can diverge
|
||||
|
||||
Even stable algorithms (PPO) can be unstable
|
||||
|
||||
#### Open direction for Stability
|
||||
|
||||
Better optimization landscapes + regularization
|
||||
|
||||
Calibration/monitoring tools for RL training
|
||||
|
||||
Architectures with built-in inductive biased (e.g., equivariance)
|
||||
|
||||
### Reproducibility & Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
Results often depend on random seeds, codebase, and compute budget
|
||||
|
||||
Benchmark can be overfit; comparisons apples-to-oranges
|
||||
|
||||
Offline evaluation is especially tricky
|
||||
|
||||
#### Toward Better Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
- Robustness checks and ablations
|
||||
- Out-of-distribution test suites
|
||||
- Realistic benchmarks beyond games (e.g., science and healthcare)
|
||||
|
||||
### Generalization & Distribution Shift
|
||||
|
||||
Policy overfit to training environments and fail under small challenges
|
||||
|
||||
Sim-to-real gap, sensor noise, morphology changes, domain drift.
|
||||
|
||||
Requires learning invariance and robust decision rules.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Open direction for Generalization
|
||||
|
||||
- Domain randomization + system identification
|
||||
- Robust/ risk-sensitive RL
|
||||
- Representation learning for invariance
|
||||
- Meta-RL and fast adaptation
|
||||
|
||||
### Model-based RL: Promise & Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
- Learned models enable planning and sample efficiency
|
||||
- But distribution mismatch and model exploitation can break policies
|
||||
- Long-horizon imagination amplifies errors
|
||||
- Model-learning is challenging
|
||||
|
||||
### Safety, alignment, and constraints
|
||||
|
||||
Reward mis-specification -> unsafe or unintended behavior
|
||||
|
||||
Need to respect constraints: energy, collisions, ethics, regulation
|
||||
|
||||
Exploration itself may be unsafe
|
||||
|
||||
#### Open direction for Safety RL
|
||||
|
||||
- Constraint RL (Lagrangians, CBFs, she)
|
||||
|
||||
### Theory Gaps & Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
Deep RL lacks strong general guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
We don't fully understand when/why it works
|
||||
|
||||
Bridging theory and
|
||||
|
||||
#### Promising theory directoins
|
||||
|
||||
Optimization thoery of RL objectives
|
||||
|
||||
Generalization and representation learning bounds
|
||||
|
||||
Finite-sample analysis s
|
||||
|
||||
### Connection to foundation models
|
||||
|
||||
- Pre-training on large scale experience
|
||||
- World models as sequence predictors
|
||||
- RLHF/preference optimization for alignment
|
||||
- Open problems: groundign
|
||||
|
||||
### What to expect in the next 3-5 years
|
||||
|
||||
Unified model-based offline + safe RL stacks
|
||||
|
||||
Large pretrianed decision models
|
||||
|
||||
Deployment in high-stake domains
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user