PreprintCited by 18Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningMachine Learning and Algorithms

C-Learning: Learning to Achieve Goals via Recursive Classification

Open access
Eysenbach, Benjamin, Salakhutdinov, Ruslan, Levine, Sergey·2020·arXiv

Abstract

We study the problem of predicting and controlling the future state distribution of an autonomous agent. This problem, which can be viewed as a reframing of goal-conditioned reinforcement learning (RL), is centered around learning a conditional probability density function over future states. Instead of directly estimating this density function, we indirectly estimate this density function by training a classifier to predict whether an observation comes from the future. Via Bayes' rule, predictions from our classifier can be transformed into predictions over future states. Importantly, an off-policy variant of our algorithm allows us to predict the future state distribution of a new policy, without collecting new experience. This variant allows us to optimize functionals of a policy's future state distribution, such as the density of reaching a particular goal state. While conceptually similar to Q-learning, our work lays a principled foundation for goal-conditioned RL as density estimation, providing justification for goal-conditioned methods used in prior work. This foundation makes hypotheses about Q-learning, including the optimal goal-sampling ratio, which we confirm experimentally. Moreover, our proposed method is competitive with prior goal-conditioned RL methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2011.08909

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The successor model (SM) defines an explicit distribution over temporally abstract trajectories.

    “In this section, we introduce a generalization of the SR—the successor model (SM; Janner et al., 2020; Eysenbach et al., 2020)—that defines an explicit distribution over temporally abstract trajectories (Figure 4).”

    From Predictive Representations: Building Blocks of Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as Eysenbach et al., 2020

    The Preliminaries (p. 2) define a discounted distribution over future states, and Related Work (p. 2) connects the approach to successor features. But the paper describes C-learning as indirectly estimating that state distribution through classification; it does not define a successor model that explicitly distributes probability over temporally abstract trajectories. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Marcin Andrychowicz, Filip Wolski, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. Hindsight experience replay. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 5048-5058, 2017.
  2. Benjamin Eysenbach, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Sergey Levine. Search on the replay buffer: Bridging planning and reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 15246-15257, 2019.
  3. Karol Gregor, George Papamakarios, Frederic Besse, Lars Buesing, and Theophane Weber. Temporal difference variational auto-encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03107 , 2018. · arXiv
  4. Junhyuk Oh, Yijie Guo, Satinder Singh, and Honglak Lee. Self-imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.05635 , 2018. · arXiv
  5. Pedro A Ortega and Daniel A Braun. Thermodynamics as a theory of decision-making with informationprocessing costs. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 469(2153):20120683, 2013.
  6. Vitchyr H Pong, Murtaza Dalal, Steven Lin, Ashvin Nair, Shikhar Bahl, and Sergey Levine. Skew-fit: Statecovering self-supervised reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03698 , 2019. · arXiv
  7. Konrad Rawlik, Marc Toussaint, and Sethu Vijayakumar. On stochastic optimal control and reinforcement learning by approximate inference. In Twenty-third international joint conference on artificial intelligence , 2013.
  8. Nikolay Savinov, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Semi-parametric topological memory for navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00653 , 2018. · arXiv
  9. Yannick Schroecker and Charles Isbell. Universal value density estimation for imitation learning and goalconditioned reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06473 , 2020. · arXiv
  10. Richard S Sutton and Brian Tanner. Temporal-difference networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 1377-1384, 2005.
  11. Yuval Tassa, Yotam Doron, Alistair Muldal, Tom Erez, Yazhe Li, Diego de Las Casas, David Budden, Abbas Abdolmaleki, Josh Merel, Andrew Lefrancq, et al. Deepmind control suite. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00690 , 2018. · arXiv
  12. Yuval Tassa, Saran Tunyasuvunakool, Alistair Muldal, Yotam Doron, Siqi Liu, Steven Bohez, Josh Merel, Tom Erez, Timothy Lillicrap, and Nicolas Heess. dm control: Software and tasks for continuous control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.12983 , 2020. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eysenbach, B., Salakhutdinov, R., & Levine, S.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3101007912
Cited by
18
References
50
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
goal-conditioned reinforcement learning, conditional density estimation, Bayes' theorem, autonomous agents, Q-learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review