next up previous contents
Next: 7.9 Implementation Issues Up: 7. Eligibility Traces Previous: 7.7 Eligibility Traces for   Contents

7.8 Replacing Traces

In some cases significantly better performance can be obtained by using a slightly modified kind of trace known as a replacing trace. Suppose a state is visited and then revisited before the trace due to the first visit has fully decayed to zero. With accumulating traces (7.5), the revisit causes a further increment in the trace, driving it greater than , whereas with replacing traces, the trace is reset to . Figure  7.16 contrasts these two kinds of traces. Formally, a replacing trace for a discrete state is defined by

Figure 7.16: Accumulating and replacing traces.


Prediction or control algorithms using replacing traces are often called replace-trace methods. Although replacing traces are only slightly different from accumulating traces, they can produce a significant improvement in learning rate. Figure  7.17 compares the performance of conventional and replace-trace versions of TD($\lambda $) on the 19-state random walk prediction task. Other examples for a slightly more general case are given in Figure 8.10 in the next chapter.

Figure 7.17: Error as a function of on a 19-state random walk task. These data are using the best value of $\alpha$ for each value of $\lambda $. The error is averaged over all 19 states and the first 20 trials of 100 different runs.

Example 7.5   Figure  7.18 shows an example of the kind of task that is difficult for control methods using accumulating eligibility traces. All rewards are zero except on entering the terminal state, which produces a reward of +1. From each state, selecting the right action brings the agent one step closer to the terminal reward, whereas the wrong (upper) action leaves it in the same state to try again. The full sequence of states is long enough that one would like to use long traces to get the fastest learning. However, problems occur if long accumulating traces are used. Suppose, on the first episode, at some state, , the agent by chance takes the wrong action a few times before taking the right action. As the agent continues, the trace is likely to be larger than the trace . The right action was more recent, but the wrong action was selected more times. When reward is finally received, then, the value for the wrong action is likely to go up more than the value for the right action. On the next episode the agent will be even more likely to go the wrong way many times before going right, making it even more likely that the wrong action will have the larger trace. Eventually, all of this will be corrected, but learning is significantly slowed. With replacing traces, on the other hand, this problem never occurs. No matter how many times the wrong action is taken, its eligibility trace is always less than that for the right action after the right action has been taken.

Figure 7.18: A simple task that causes problems for control methods using accumulating traces.

There is an interesting relationship between replace-trace methods and Monte Carlo methods in the undiscounted case. Just as conventional TD(1) is related to the every-visit MC algorithm, so replace-trace TD(1) is related to the first-visit MC algorithm. In particular, the off-line version of replace-trace TD(1) is formally identical to first-visit MC (Singh and Sutton, 1996). How, or even whether, these methods and results extend to the discounted case is unknown.

There are several possible ways to generalize replacing eligibility traces for use in control methods. Obviously, when a state is revisited and a new action is selected, the trace for that action should be reset to 1. But what of the traces for the other actions for that state? The approach recommended by Singh and Sutton (1996) is to set the traces of all the other actions from the revisited state to 0. In this case, the state-action traces are updated by the following instead of (7.13):


Note that this variant of replacing traces works out even better than the original replacing traces in the example task. Once the right action has been selected, the wrong action is left with no trace at all. The results shown in Figure 8.10 were obtained using this kind of replacing trace.

Exercise 7.6   In Example 7.5, suppose from state the wrong action is taken twice before the right action is taken. If accumulating traces are used, then how big must the trace parameter $\lambda $ be in order for the wrong action to end up with a larger eligibility trace than the right action?

Exercise 7.7 (programming)   Program Example 7.5 and compare accumulate-trace and replace-trace versions of Sarsa($\lambda $) on it, for and a range of $\alpha$ values. Can you empirically demonstrate the claimed advantage of replacing traces on this example?

Exercise 7.8   Draw a backup diagram for Sarsa($\lambda $) with replacing traces.

next up previous contents
Next: 7.9 Implementation Issues Up: 7. Eligibility Traces Previous: 7.7 Eligibility Traces for   Contents
Mark Lee 2005-01-04