Actor-Critic or Critic-Actor? A Tale of Two Time Scales

Overview

• The paper revisits the standard formulation of tabular actor-critic algorithms, which involve a two time-scale stochastic approximation.
• The value function is computed on a faster time-scale, while the policy is computed on a slower time-scale, emulating policy iteration.
• The paper observes that reversing the time scales emulates value iteration, which is also a legitimate algorithm.
• The paper provides a proof of convergence and compares the two approaches empirically, with and without function approximation (linear and nonlinear).
• The proposed critic-actor algorithm performs on par with actor-critic in terms of both accuracy and computational effort.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses a class of reinforcement learning algorithms called actor-critic algorithms, which are used to learn both a policy (the "actor") and a value function (the "critic"). In the standard formulation, the value function is updated more quickly than the policy, which emulates a process called "policy iteration."

The paper suggests that reversing the time scales, so that the policy is updated more quickly than the value function, actually emulates a different process called "value iteration." This is also a valid and legitimate approach to reinforcement learning.

The paper provides a mathematical proof showing that this reversed time-scale approach, which the authors call a "critic-actor" algorithm, will also converge to the optimal solution. They then compare the performance of the critic-actor and actor-critic algorithms, both with and without using function approximation (where the value function and policy are represented by more complex, nonlinear models).

The key finding is that the critic-actor algorithm performs just as well as the standard actor-critic, in terms of both the accuracy of the final solution and the computational effort required to reach it. This suggests that the critic-actor formulation is a viable alternative to the more commonly used actor-critic approach.

Technical Explanation

The paper revisits the standard formulation of tabular actor-critic algorithms, which involve a two time-scale stochastic approximation. In this setup, the value function (the "critic") is computed on a faster time-scale, while the policy (the "actor") is computed on a slower time-scale. This emulates the policy iteration procedure from dynamic programming.

The key insight of the paper is that reversing the time scales, so that the policy is updated more quickly than the value function, will in fact emulate the value iteration procedure. The authors show that this reversed time-scale approach, which they call a "critic-actor" algorithm, is also a legitimate and convergent algorithm for reinforcement learning.

The paper provides a proof of convergence for the critic-actor algorithm and then compares its empirical performance to the standard actor-critic algorithm. They evaluate both approaches with and without function approximation, using both linear and nonlinear function approximators for the value function and policy.

The results indicate that the critic-actor algorithm performs on par with actor-critic in terms of both accuracy and computational effort. This suggests that the critic-actor formulation is a viable alternative to the more commonly used actor-critic approach, offering similar performance characteristics but with the potential advantage of emulating the value iteration procedure.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thorough theoretical and empirical analysis of the critic-actor algorithm, demonstrating its convergence properties and comparing its performance to the standard actor-critic approach. However, the paper does not discuss any potential limitations or caveats of the proposed method.

One area that could be explored further is the sensitivity of the critic-actor algorithm to the choice of hyperparameters, such as the relative learning rates for the value function and policy updates. The paper's results suggest that the critic-actor algorithm is robust to these choices, but a more detailed analysis of its sensitivity and stability characteristics would be valuable.

Additionally, the paper focuses on tabular and linear function approximation settings. It would be interesting to see how the critic-actor algorithm performs in more challenging domains with complex, nonlinear function approximators, such as deep neural networks. Further research in this direction could help establish the broader applicability and scalability of the proposed approach.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by introducing the critic-actor algorithm and demonstrating its theoretical and empirical viability as an alternative to the standard actor-critic formulation. However, additional research is needed to fully understand the strengths, weaknesses, and broader implications of this approach.

Conclusion

The paper revisits the standard formulation of tabular actor-critic algorithms, observing that reversing the time scales of the value function and policy updates leads to a "critic-actor" algorithm that emulates the value iteration procedure. The authors provide a proof of convergence for this critic-actor algorithm and show that it performs on par with the standard actor-critic approach, both with and without function approximation.

This work suggests that the critic-actor formulation is a legitimate and viable alternative to the more commonly used actor-critic algorithms, offering similar performance characteristics but with the potential advantage of emulating the value iteration process. Further research is needed to explore the sensitivity and scalability of the critic-actor algorithm, as well as its applicability in more complex, nonlinear function approximation settings. Nevertheless, this paper contributes an important new perspective to the field of reinforcement learning algorithm design.