Data Science Archives

Stop saying “trial and errors” for now: seeing reinforcement learning through some spectrums

July 1, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning/by Yasuto Tamura

*This is the fourth article of the series My elaborate study notes on reinforcement learning.

*In this article series “the book by Barto and Sutton” means “Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction second edition.” This book is said to be almost mandatory for those who seriously learn Reinforcement Learning (RL). And “the whale book” means a Japanese textbook named 「強化学習 (機械学習プロフェッショナルシリーズ)」(“Reinforcement Learning (Machine Learning Processional Series)”), by Morimura Tetsuro. I would say the former is for those who want to mainly learn how to use RL, and the latter is for more theoretical understanding. I am trying to make something between them in my series.

1, Finally to reinforcement learning

Some of you might have got away with explaining reinforcement learning (RL) only by saying an obscure thing like “RL enables computers to learn through trial and errors.” But if you have patiently read my articles so far, you might have come to say “RL is a family of algorithms which simulate procedures similar to dynamic programming (DP).” Even though my article series has not covered anything concrete and unique to RL yet, I think my series has already laid a hopefully effective foundation of discussions on RL. And in the first article, I already explained that “trial and errors” are only agents’ actions for collecting data from the environment. Such “trial and errors” lead to “experiences” of computers. And in this article we can finally start discussing how computers “experience” things in more practical and theoretical ways.

*The expression “to learn” is also frequently used in contexts of other machine learning algorithms. Thus in order to clearly separate the ideas, let me use the expression “to experience” when it comes to explaining RL. At any rate, what computers are doing is updating parameters, and in RL also updating values and policies. But some terms related to RL also use the word “experience,” for example experience replay, so “to experience” might be a preferred phrase in RL fields.

I think changing discussions on DP into those on RL is like making graphs more “open” rather than “closed.” In the second article, I explained DP problems, where the models of environments are completely known, as repeatedly updating graphs like neural networks. As I have been repeatedly saying RL, or at least model-free RL, is an approximated application of DP in the environments without a complete model. That means, connections of nodes of the graph, that is relations of actions and states, are something agents have to estimate directly or indirectly. I think that can be seen as untying connections of the graphs which I displayed when I explained DP. By doing so, I propose to see RL or more exactly model-free RL like the graph of the right side of the figure below.

*For the time being, I would prefer to use the term model-free RL rather than just RL. That is not only because this article is about model-free RL but also because I want to avoid saying inaccurate things about wider range of RL algorithms I would have to study more precisely and explain.

Some people might say these are tree structures, and that might be technically correct. But in my sense, this is more of “willows.” The cover of the second edition of the books by Barto and Sutton also looks like willows. The cover design comes from a paper on RL named “Learning to Drive a Bicycle using Reinforcement Learning and Shaping.” The paper is about learning to ride a bike in a simulator with RL. The geometric patterns are not models of human brain nerves, but trajectories of an agent learning to balance a bike. However interestingly, the trajectories of the bike, which are inscribed on a road, partly diverge but converge in a certain way as a whole, like the RL graph I propose. That is why I chose some pictures of 「花札 (hanafuda)」as the main picture of this series. Hanafuda is a Japanese gamble card game with monthly seasonal flower pictures. And the cards of June have pictures of willows.

Source: Learning to Drive a Bicycle using Reinforcement Learning and Shaping, Randløv, (1998) Richard S. Sutton, Andrew G. Barto, “Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction,” MIT Press, (2018)

2, Untying DP graphs: planning or learning

Even though I have just loudly declared that my RL graphs are more of “willow” structures in my aesthetic sense, I must admit they should basically be discussed as popular tree structures. That is because, when you start discussing practical RL algorithms you need to see relations of states and actions as tree structures extending. If you already more or less familiar with tree structures or searching algorithms on tree graphs, learning RL with tree structures should be more or less straightforward to you. Another reason for using tree structures with nodes of states and actions is that the book by Barto and Sutton use buck up diagrams of Bellman equations which are tree graphs. But I personally think the graphs should be used more effectively, so I am trying to expand its uses to DP and RL algorithms in general. In order to avoid confusions about current discussions on RL in my article series, I would like to give an overall review on how to look at my graphs.

The graphs in the figure below are going to be used in my articles, at least when I talk about model-free RL. I made them based on the backup diagram of Bellman equation introduced in the book by Barto and Sutton. I would like you to first remember that in RL we are basically discussing Markov decision process (MDP) environment, where the next action and the resulting next states depends only on the current state. Such models are composed of white nodes representing each state $s$ in an state space $\mathcal{S}$ , and black nodes representing each action $a$ , which is a member of an action space $\mathcal{A}$ . Any behaviors of agents are represented as going back and forth between black and white nodes of the model, and that is why connections in the MDP model are bidirectional. In my articles let me call such model of environments “a closed model.” RL or general planning problems are matters of optimizing policies in such models of environments. Optimizing the policies are roughly classified into two types, planning/searching or RL, and the main difference between them is whether connections of graphs of models are known or not. Planning or searching is conducted without actually moving in the environment. DP are family of planning algorithms which are known to converge, and so far in my articles we have seen that DP are enabled by repeatedly applying Bellman operators. But instead of considering and updating all the possible transitions in the model like DP, planning can be conducted more sparsely. Such sparse planning are often called searching, and many of them use tree structures. If you have learned any general decision making problems with tree graphs, you might be already familiar with some searching techniques like alpha-beta pruning.

*In explanations on DP in my articles, directions of connections of model graphs are confusing, so I precisely explained how to look at them in the second section in the last article.

On the other hand, RL algorithms are matters of learning the linkages of models of environments by actually moving in them. For example, when the agent in the figure below move on a grid map like the purple arrows, the movement is represented like in the closed model in the middle. However as the agent does not have the complete closed model, the agent has to move around in the environment like the tree structure at the right side to learn values of each node.

The point is, whether models of environments are known or unknown, or whether agents actually move in the environment or not, movements of agents are basically represented as going back and forth between white nodes and black nodes in closed models. And such closed models are entangled in searching or RL. They are similar operations, but they are essentially different in that searching agents do not actually move in searching but in RL they actually move. In order to distinguish searching and learning, in my articles, trees for searching are extended vertically, trees for learning horizontally.

*DP and searching are both planning, but DP consider all the connections of actions and states by repeatedly applying Bellman operators. Thus I would not count DP as “untying” of closed models.

3, Some spectrums in RL algorithms

Starting studying actual RL algorithms also means encountering various algorithms one after another. Some of you might have already been overwhelmed by new terms coming up one after another in study materials on RL. That is because, as I explained in the first article, RL is more about how to train models of values or policies. Thus it is natural that compared to general machine learning, which more or less share the same training frameworks, RL has a variety of training procedures. Rather than independently studying each RL algorithm, I think it is more effective to see connections of each algorithm, which is linked by adjusting degrees of some important elements in RL. In fact I have already introduced those elements as some pairs of key words of RL in the first article. But it would be all the more effective to review them, especially after learning DP algorithms as representative planning methods. If you study RL that way, you would come to see trial and errors or RL as a crucial but just one aspect of RL.

I think if you care less about the trial-and-error aspect of RL that allows you to study RL more effectively in the beginning. And for the time being, you should stop viewing RL in the popular way as presented above. Not that I am encouraging you to ignore the trial and error part, namely relations of actions, rewards, and states. My point is that it is more of inside the agent that should be emphasized. Planning, including DP is conducted inside the agent, and trial and errors are collection of data from the environment for the sake of the planning. That is why in many study materials on RL, DP is first introduced. And if you see differences of RL algorithms as adjusting of some pairs of elements of planning problems, it would be less likely that you would get lost in curriculums on RL. The pairs are like some spectrums. Not that you always have to choose either of each pair, but rather ideal solutions are often in the middle of the two ends of the spectrums depending on tasks. Let’s take a look at the types of those spectrums one by one.

(1) Value-policy or actor-critic spectrum

The crucial type of spectrum you should be already familiar with is the value-policy one. I think this spectrum can be adjusted in various ways. For example, over the last two articles we have seen how values and policies reach the optimal functions in DP using policy iteration or value iteration. Policy iteration alternates between updating values and policies until convergence to the optimal policy, whereas value iteration keeps updating only values until reaching the optimal value, to get the optimal policy at the end. And similar discussions can be seen also in the upcoming RL algorithms. The book by Barto and Sutton sees such operations in general as generalized policy iteration (GPI).

Source: Richard S. Sutton, Andrew G. Barto, “Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction,” MIT Press, (2018)

You should pay attention to the idea of GPI because this is what makes RL different form other general machine learning. In many cases RL is explained as a field of machine learning which is like trial and errors, but I personally think that GPI, interactive optimization between values and policies, should be more emphasized. As I said in the first article, RL optimizes decision making rules, that is policies $\pi(a|s)$ , in MDPs. Other general machine learning algorithms have more direct supervision by loss functions and models are optimized so that loss functions are minimized. In the case of the figure below, an ML model $f$ is optimized to $f_{\ast}$ by optimization such as gradient descent. But on the other hand in RL policies $\pi$ do not have direct loss functions. Then RL uses values $v(s)$ , which are functions of how good it is to be in states $s$ . As one part of GPI, the value function $v_{\pi}$ for the current policy $\pi$ is calculated, and this is called estimation in the book by Barto and Sutton. And based on the estimated value function, the policy is improved as $\pi '$ , which is called policy improvement, and overall processes of estimation and policy improvement are called control in the book. And $v_{\pi}$ and $\pi$ are updated alternately this way until converging to the optimal values $v_{\ast}$ or policies $\pi_{\ast}$ . This interactive updates of values and policies are done inside the agent, in the dotted frame in red below. I personally think this part should be more emphasized than trial-and-error-like behaviors of agents. Once you see trial and errors of RL as crucial but just one aspect of GPI and focus more inside agents, you would see why so many study materials start explaining RL with DP.

You can explicitly model such interactions of values and policies by modeling each of them with different functions, and in this case such frameworks of RL in general are called actor-critic methods. I am gong to explain actor-critic methods in an upcoming article. Thus the value-policy spectrum also can be seen as a actor-critic spectrum. Differences between the pairs of value-policy or actor-critic spectrums are something you would little by little understand. For now I would say GPI is the most general and important idea behind RL. But practical RL algorithms are implemented as actor-critic methods. Critic parts gives some signals to actor parts, and critic parts get its consequence by actor parts taking actions in environments. Not that actors directly give feedback to critics.

*I think one of confusions in studying RL come from introducing Q-learning or SARSA at the first algorithms or a control in RL. As I have said earlier, interactive relations between values and policies or actors and critics, that is GPI, should be emphasized. And I think that is why DP is first introduced in many books. But in Q-learning or SARSA, an actor and a critic parts are combined as one module. But explicitly separating the actor and critic parts would be just too difficult at the beginning. And modeling an actor and a critic with separate modules would lead to difficulties in optimizing them together.

(2) Exploration-exploitation or on-off policy spectrum

I think the most straightforward spectrum is the exploitation-exploration spectrum. You can adjust how likely agents take random actions to collect data. Occasionally it is ideal for agents to have some degree of randomness in taking actions to explore unknown states of environments. One of the simplest algorithms to formulate randomness of actions is ε-greedy method, which I explained in the first article. In this method in short agents take a random action with a probability of ε. Instead of arbitrarily setting a hyperparameter $\epsilon$ , randomness of actions can be also learned by modeling policies with certain functions. This randomness of functions can be also modeled in actor-critic frameworks. That means, depending on a choice of an actor, such actor can learn randomness of actions, that is explorations.

The two types of spectrums I have introduced so far lead to another type of spectrum. It is an on-off policy spectrum. Even though I explained types of policies in the last article using examples of home-lab-Starbucks diagrams, there is another way to classify policies: there are target policies and behavior policies. The former are the very policies whose optimization we have been discussing. The latter are policies for taking actions and collecting data. When agents use target policies also as behavior policies, they are on-policy algorithms. If agents use different policies for taking actions during optimization of target policies, they are off-policy methods.

Policy iteration and value iteration of DP can be also classified into on-policy or off-policy in a sense. In policy iteration values are updated using an up-to-date estimated policy, and the policy becomes optimal when it converges. Thus behavior and target policies are the same in this case. On the other hand in value iteration, values are updated with Bellman optimality operator, which updates values in a greedy way. Using greedy method means the policy $\pi$ is not used for considering which action to take. Thus target and behavior policies are different. As you will see soon, concrete model-free RL algorithms like SARSA or Q-learning also have the same structure: the former is on-policy and the latter is off-policy. The difference of on-policy or off-policy would be more straightforward if we model behavior policies and target policies with different functions. An advantage of off-policy RL is you can model randomness of exploration of agents with extra functions. On the other hand, a disadvantage is that it would be harder to train different models at the same time. That might be a kind of tradeoff similar to an actor-critic method.

Even though this exploration-exploitation aspect of RL is relatively easy to understand, at the same time that can lead to much more complicated discussions on RL, which I would not be able to cover in this article series. I recommended you to stop seeing RL as trial and errors for the time being, but in the end trial and errors would prove to be crucial because data needed for GPI are collected mainly via trial and errors. Even if you implement some simple RL algorithms, you would soon realize it is hard to deal with unvisited states. Enough explorations need to be modeled by a behavior policy or some sophisticated heuristic techniques. I am planning to explain convergence of several RL algorithms, and they are guaranteed by sufficiently exploring all the states. However, thorough explorations of all the states lead to massive computational costs. But lack of exploration would let RL agents myopically overestimate current policies, never finding policies which pay off in the long run. That might be close to discussions on how to efficiently find a global minimum of a loss function, avoiding local minimums.

(3) TD-MonteCarlo spectrum

A variety of spectrums so far are enabled by modeling proper functions on demand. But in AI problems such functions are something which have to be automatically trained with some supervision. Instead of giving supervision explicitly with annotated data like in supervised learning of general machine learning, RL agents train models with “experiences.” As I am going to explain in the next part of this article, “experiences” in RL contexts mean making some estimations of values and adjusting such estimations based on actual rewards they get. And the timings of such feedback lead to another spectrum, which I call a TD-MonteCarlo spectrum. When the feedback happens every time an agent takes an action, it is TD method, on the other hand when that happens only at the end of an episode, that is Monte Carlo method. But it is easy to imagine that ideal solutions are usually at the middle of them. I am going to dig this topic soon in the next article. And n-step methods or TD(λ), which bridge the TD and Monte Carlo, are going to be covered in one of upcoming articles.

(4) Model free-based spectrum

The next spectrum might be relatively hard to understand, and to be honest I am still not completely sure about this topic. Please bear that in your mind. In the last section, I said RL is a kind of untying DP graphs and make them open because in RL, models of environments are unknown. However to be exact, that was mainly about model-free RL, which this article is going to cover for the time being. And I would say the graphs I showed in the last section were just two extremes of this model based-free spectrum. Some model-based RL methods exist in the middle of those two ends. In short RL agents can retain models of environments and do some plannings even when they do trial and errors. The figure below briefly compares planning, model-based RL, and model-free RL in the spectrum.

Let’s take a rough example of humans solving a huge maze. DP, which I have covered is like having a perfect map of the maze and making plans of how to move inside in advance. On the other hand, model-free reinforcement learning is like soon actually entering the maze without any plans. In model-free reinforcement learning, you only know how big the maze is, and you have a great memory for remembering in which directions to move, in all the places. However, as the model of how paths are connected is unknown, and you naively try to remember all the actions in all the places, it generally takes a longer time to solve the maze. As you could easily imagine, having some heuristic ideas about the model of the maze and taking some notes and making plans about courses would be the most efficient and the most peaceful. And such models in your head can be updated by actually moving in the maze.

*I believe that you would not say the pictures above are spoilers.

I need to more clearly talk about what a model is in RL or general planning problems. The book by Barto and Sutton simply defines a model this way: “By a model of the environment we mean anything that an agent can use to predict how the environment will respond to its actions. ” The book also says such models can be also classified to distribution models and sample models. The difference between them is the former describes an environment as combinations of known models, but the latter is like a black box model of an environment. An intuitive example is, as introduced in the book by Barto and Sutton, throwing dozens of dices can be seen in the both types. If you just throw the dices, sometimes chancing numbers of dices, and record the sum of the numbers on the dices s every time, that is equal to getting the sum from a black box. But a probabilistic distribution of such sums can be actually calculated as a multinomial distribution. Just as well, you can see a probability of transitions in an RL environment as a black box, but the probability can be also modeled. Some readers might have realized that distribution or sample models can be almost the same in the end, with sufficient data. In many cases of machine learning or statistics algorithms, complicated distributions have to be approximated with samples. Or rather how to approximate them is more of interest. In the case of dozens of dices, you can analytically calculate its distribution model as a multinomial distribution. But if you throw the dices numerous times, you would get precise approximated distributions.

When we discuss model-based RL, we need to consider not only DP but also other planning algorithms. DP is a family of planning algorithms which are known to converge, and many of RL algorithms share a lot with DP at theoretical levels. But in fact DP has one shortcoming even if the MDP model of an environment is known: DP needs to consider and update all the states. When models of environments are too complicated and large, applying DP is not a good idea. Also in many of such cases, you could not even get such a huge model of the environment. You would rather get only a black box model of the environment. Such a black box model only gets a pair of current state and action $(s, a)$ , and gives out the next state $s'$ and corresponding reward $r$ , that is the black box is a sample model. In this case other planning methods with some searching algorithms are used, for example Monte Carlo tree search. Such search algorithms are designed to more efficiently and sparsely search states and actions of interest. Many of searching algorithms used in RL make uses of tree structures. Model-based approaches can be roughly classified into three types below based on size or complication of models.

*As you could see, differences between sample models and distribution models can be very ambiguous. So are differences between model-free and model-based RL, I guess. As a matter of fact the whale book says the distributions of models approximated in model-free RL are the same as those in model-based ones. I cannot say anything exactly anymore, but I guess model-free RL is more of “memorizing” an environment, or combinations of states and actions in the environments. But memorizing environments can be computationally problematic in many cases, so assuming some distributions of models can help. That is my impression for now.

*Tree search algorithms alone shows very impressive performances, as long as you have massive computation resources. A heuristic tree search without reinforcement learning could defeat Garri Kasparow, a former chess champion, as long as enough computation resource is available. Searching algorithms were enough for “simplicity” of chess.

*I am not sure whether model-free RL algorithms are always simpler than model-based ones. For example Deep Q-Learning, a model-free method with some neural networks can learn to play Atari or Nintendo Entertainment System. Model-based deep RL is used in more complex task like AlphaGo or AlphaZero, which can defeat world champions of various board games. AlphaGo or AlphaZero models intuitions in phases of board games with convolutional neural networks (CNN), prediction of some phases ahead with search algorithms, and learning from past experiences with RL. I am not going to cover model-based RL in general in this series, but instead I would like to explain how RL enables computers to play video games after introducing some searching algorithms.

(5) Model expressivity spectrum

No matter how impressive or dreamy RL algorithms sound, their competence largely depend on model expressivity. In the first article, I emphasized “simplicity” of RL. DP or RL algorithms so far or in upcoming several articles consider incredibly simple cases like kids playbooks. And that beginning parts of most RL study materials cover only the left side of the figure below. In order to enable RL agents with more impressive tasks such as balancing cart-pole or playing video games, we need to raise the bar of expressivity spectrum, from the left to the right side of the figure below. You need to wait until a chapter or a section on “function approximation” in order to actually feel that your computer is doing trial and errors. And such chapters finally appear after reading half of both the book by Barto and Sutton and the whale book.

*And this spectrum is also a spectrum of computation costs or convergence. The left type could be easily implemented like programming assignments of schools since it in short needs only Excel sheets, and you would soon get results. The middle type would be more challenging, but that would not b computationally too expensive. But when it comes to the type at the right side, that is not something which should be done on your local computer. At least you need a GPU. You should expect some hours or days even for training RL agents to play 8 bit video games. That is of course due to cost of training deep neural networks (DNN), especially CNN. But another factors is potential inefficiency of RL. I hope I could explain those weak points of RL and remedies for them.

We need to model values and policies with certain functions. For the time being, in my articles values and policies are just modeled as tabular data, that is some NumPy arrays or Excel sheets. These are types of cases where environments and actions are relatively simple and discrete. Thus they can be modeled with some tabular data with the same degree of freedom. Assume a case where there are only 30 grids in an environment and only 4 types of actions in every grid. In such case, values are stored as arrays with 30 elements, and so are policies. But when environments are more complex or require continuous values of some parameters, values and policies have to be approximated with some models. When only relatively few parameters need to be estimated, simple machine learning models such as softmax functions can be used as such models. But compared to the cases with tabular data, convergence of training has to be discussed more carefully. And when you need to estimate continuous values, techniques like policy gradients have to be introduced. And we can dramatically enhance expressivity of models with deep neural netowrks (DNN), and such RL is called deep RL. Deep RL has showed great progress these days, and it is capable of impressive performances. Deep RL often needs observers to process inputs like video frames, and for example convolutional neural networks (CNN) can be used to make such observers. At any rate, no matter how much expressivity RL models have, they need to be supervised with some signals just as general machine learning often need labeled data. And “experiences” give such supervisions to RL agents.

(6) Adjusting sliders of spectrum

As you might have already noticed, these spectrums are not something you can adjust independently like faders on mixing board. They are more like some sliders for adjusting colors, brightness, or chroma on painting software. If you adjust one element, other parts are more or less influenced. And even though there are a variety of colors in the world, they continuously change by adjusting those elements of colors. Just as well, even if each RL algorithms look independent, many of them share more or less the same ideas, and only some parts are different in terms of their degrees. When you get lost in the course of studying RL, I would like you to decompose the current topic into these spectrums of RL elements I have explained.

I hope my explanations so far changed how you see RL. In the first article I already said RL is approximation of DP-like procedures with data collected by trial and errors, but from now on I would explain it also this way: RL is a family of algorithms which enable GPI by adjusting some spectrums.

In the next some articles, I am going to mainly cover RL algorithms named SARSA and Q-learning. Both of them use tabular data, and they are model-free. And in values and policies, or actors and critics are together modeled as action-value functions, which I am going to explain later in this article. The only difference is SARSA is on-policy, and Q-learning is off-policy, just as I have already mentioned. And when it comes to how to train them, they both use Temporal Difference (TD), and this gives signals of “experience” to RL agents. Altering DP in to model-free RL is, in the figure above, adjusting the model-based-free and MonteCarlo-TD spectrums to the right end. And you also adjust the low-high-expressivity and value-policy spectrums to the left end. In terms of actor-critic spectrum, the actor and the critic parts are modeled as the same module. Seeing those algorithms this way would be much more effective than looking at their pseudocode independently.

* I make study materials on machine learning, sponsored by DATANOMIQ. I do my best to make my content as straightforward but as precise as possible. I include all of my reference sources. If you notice any mistakes in my materials, including grammatical errors, please let me know (email: yasuto.tamura@datanomiq.de). And if you have any advice for making my materials more understandable to learners, I would appreciate hearing it.

It’s All About Data: The Training of AI Models

June 20, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Main Category/by Benjamin Aunkofer

In deep learning, there are different training methods. Which one we use in an AI project depends on the data provided by our customer: how much data is there, is it labeled or unlabeled? Or is there both labeled and unlabeled data?

Let’s say our customer needs structured, labeled images for an online tourism portal. The task for our AI model is therefore to recognize whether a picture is a bedroom, bathroom, spa area, restaurant, etc. Let’s take a look at the possible training methods.

1. Supervised Learning

If our customer has a lot of images and they are all labeled, this is a rare stroke of luck. We can then apply supervised learning. The AI model learns the different image categories based on the labeled images. For this purpose, it receives the training data with the desired results from us.

During training, the model searches for patterns in the images that match the desired results, learning the characteristics of the categories. The model can then apply what it has learned to new, unseen data and in this way provide a prediction for unlabeled images, i.e., something like “bathroom 98%.”

2. Unsupervised Learning

If our customer can provide many images as training data, but all of them are not labeled, we have to resort to unsupervised learning. This means that we cannot tell the model what it should learn (the assignment to categories), but it must find regularities in the data itself.

Contrastive learning is currently a common method of unsupervised learning. Here, we generate several sections from one image at a time. The model should learn that the sections of the same image are more similar to each other than to those of other images. Or in short, the model learns to distinguish between similar and dissimilar images.

Although we can use this method to make predictions, they can never achieve the quality of results of supervised learning.

3. Semi-supervised Learning

If our customer can provide us with few labeled data and a large amount of unlabeled data, we apply semi-supervised learning. In practice, we actually encounter this data situation most often.

With semi-supervised learning, we can use both data sets for training, the labeled and the unlabeled data. This is possible by combining contrastive learning and supervised learning, for example: we train an AI model with the labeled data to obtain predictions for room categories. At the same time, we let the model learn similarities and dissimilarities in the unlabeled data and then optimize itself. In this way, we can ultimately achieve good label predictions for new, unseen images.

Supervised vs. Unsupervised vs. Semi-supervised

Everyone who is entrusted with an AI project wants to apply supervised learning. In practice, however, this is rarely the case, as rarely all training data is well structured and labeled.

If only unstructured and unlabeled data is available, we can at least extract information from the data with unsupervised learning. These can already provide added value for our customer. However, compared to supervised learning, the quality of the results is significantly worse.

With semi-supervised learning, we try to resolve the data dilemma of small part labeled data, large part unlabeled data. We use both datasets and can obtain good prediction results whose quality is often on par with those of supervised learning. This article is written in cooperation between DATANOMIQ and pixolution, a company for computer vision and AI-bases visual search.

Automatic Financial Trading Agent for Low-risk Portfolio Management using Deep Reinforcement Learning

June 9, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Main Category/by Jieyun Hu

This article focuses on autonomous trading agent to solve the capital market portfolio management problem. Researchers aim to achieve higher portfolio return while preferring lower-risk actions. It uses deep reinforcement learning Deep Q-Network (DQN) to train the agent. The main contribution of their work is the proposed target policy.

Introduction

Author emphasizes the importance of low-risk actions for two reasons: 1) the weak positive correlation between risk and profit suggests high returns can be obtained with low-risk actions, and 2) customer satisfaction decreases with increases in investment risk, which is undesirable. Author challenges the limitation of Supervised Learning algorithm since it requires domain knowledge. Thus, they propose Reinforcement Learning to be more suitable, because it only requires state, action and reward specifications.

The study verifies the method through the back-test in the cryptocurrency market because it is extremely volatile and offers enormous and diverse data. Agents then learn with shorter periods and are tested for the same period to verify the robustness of the method.

2 Proposed Method

The overall structure of the proposed method is shown below.

The architecutre of the proposed trading agent system.

2.1 Problem Definition

The portfolio consists of m assets and one base currency.

The price vector p stores the price p of all assets:

The portfolio vector w stores the amount of each asset:

At time $𝑡$ , the total value $W_t$ of the portfolio is defined as the inner product of the price vector $p_t$ and the portfolio vector $w_t$ .

Finally, the goal is to maximize the profit $P_t$ at the terminal time step $𝑇$ .

2.2 Asset Data Preprocessing

1) Asset Selection
Data is drawn from the Binance Exchange API, where top m traded coins are selected as assets.

2) Data Collection
Each coin has 9 properties, shown in Table.1, so each trade history matrix has size (α * 9), where α is the size of the target period converted into minutes.

3) Zero-Padding
Pad all other coins to match the matrix size of the longest coin. (Coins have different listing days)

Comment: Author pointed out that zero-padding may be lacking, but empirical results still confirm their method covering the missing data well.

4) Stack Matrices
Stack m matrices of size (α * 9) to form a block of size (m* α * 9). Then, use sliding window method with widow size w to create (α – w + 1) number of sequential blocks with size (w * m * 9).

5) Normalization
Normalize blocks with min-max normalization method. They are called history block 𝜙 and used as input (ie. state) for the agent.

3. Deep Q-Network

The proposed RL-based trading system follows the DQN structure.

Deep Q-Network has 2 networks, Q- and Target network, and a component called experience replay. The Q-network is the agent that is trained to produce the optimal state-action value (aka. q-value).

Comment: Q-value is calculated by the Bellman equation, which, in short, consists of the immediate reward from next action, and the discounted value of the next state by following the policy for all subsequent steps.

Here,
Agent: Portfolio manager
Action a: Trading strategy according to the current state
State 𝜙 : State of the capital market environment
Environment: Has all trade histories for assets, return reward r and provide next state 𝜙’ to agent again

DQN workflow:

DQN gets trained in multiple time steps of multiple episodes. Let’s look at the workflow of one episode.

Training of a Deep Q-Network

1) Experience replay selects an action according to the behavior policy, executes in the environment, returns the reward and next state. This experience set ( $\phi_t, a_t, r_r,\phi_{t+!}$ ) is stored in the repository as a sample of training data.

2) From the repository of prior observations, take a random batch of samples as the input to both Q- and Target network. The Q-network takes the current state and action from each data sample and predicts the q-value for that particular action. This is the ‘Predicted Q-Value’.Comment: Author uses 𝜀-greedy algorithm to calculate q-value and select action. To simplify, 𝜀-greedy policy takes the optimal action if a randomly generated number is greater than 𝜀, which represents a tradeoff between exploration and exploitation.

The Target network takes the next state from each data sample and predicts the best q-value out of all actions that can be taken from that state. This is the ‘Target Q-Value’.

Comment: Author proposes a different target policy to calculate the target q-value.

3) The Predicted q-value, Target q-value, and the observed reward from the data sample is used to compute the Loss to train the Q-network.

Comment: Target Network is not trained. It is held constant to serve as a stable target for learning and will be updated with a frequency different from the Q-network.

4) Copy Q-network weights to Target network after n time steps and continue to next time step until this episode is finished.

4.0 Main Contribution of the Research

4.1 Action and Reward

Agent determines not only action a but ratio , at which the action is applied.

Action:
Hold, buy and sell. Buy and sell are defined discretely for each asset. Hold holds all assets. Therefore, there are (2m + 1) actions in the action set A.

Agent obtains q-value of each action through q-network and selects action by using 𝜀-greedy algorithm as behavior policy.
Ratio:
$\sigma$ is defined as the softmax value for the q-value of each action (ie. i-th asset at $\sigma = 0.5$ , then i-th asset is bought using 50% of base currency).
Reward:
Reward depends on the portfolio value before and after the trading strategy. It is clipped to [-1,1] to avoid overfitting.

4.2 Proposed Target Policy

Author sets the target based on the expected SARSA algorithm with some modification.

Comment: Author claims that greedy policy ignores the risks that may arise from exploring other outcomes other than the optimal one, which is fatal for domains where safe actions are preferred (ie. capital market).

The proposed policy uses softmax algorithm adjusted with greediness according to the temperature term 𝜏. However, softmax value is very sensitive to the differences in optimal q-value of states. To stabilize learning, and thus to get similar greediness in all states, author redefine 𝜏 as the mean of absolute values for all q-values in each state multiplied by a hyperparameter 𝜏’.

4.3 Q-Network Structure

This study uses Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to construct the networks. Detailed structure of the networks is shown in Table 2.

Comment: CNN is a deep neural network method that hierarchically extracts local features through a weighted filter. More details see: https://towardsdatascience.com/stock-market-action-prediction-with-convnet-8689238feae3.

5 Experiment and Hyperparameter Tuning

5.1 Experiment Setting

Data is collected from August 2017 to March 2018 when the price fluctuates extensively.

Three evaluation metrics are used to compare the performance of the trading agent.

Profit $P_t$ introduced in 2.1.
Sharpe Ratio: A measure of return, taking risk into account.

Comment: $p_t$ is the standard deviation of the expected return and $P_f$ is the return of a risk-free asset, which is set to 0 here.
Maximum Drawdown: Maximum loss from a peak to a through, taking downside risk into account.

5.2 Hyperparameter Optimization

The proposed method has a number of hyperparameters: window size mentioned in 2.2, 𝜏’ in the target policy, and hyperparameters used in DQN structure. Author believes the former two are key determinants for the study and performs GridSearch to set w = 30, 𝜏’ = 0.25. The other hyperparameters are determined using heuristic search. Specifications of all hyperparameters are summarized in the last page.

Comment: Heuristic is a type of search that looks for a good solution, not necessarily a perfect one, out of the available options.

5.3 Performance Evaluation

Benchmark algorithms:

UBAH (Uniform buy and hold): Invest in all assets and hold until the end.
UCRP (Uniform Constant Rebalanced Portfolio): Rebalance portfolio uniformly for every trading period.

Methods from other studies: hyperparameters as suggested in the studies
EG (Exponential Gradient)
PAMR (Passive Aggressive Mean Reversion Strategy)

Comment: DQN basic uses greedy policy as the target policy.

The proposed DQN method exhibits the best overall results out of the 6 methods. When the agent is trained with shorter periods, although MDD increases significantly, it still performs better than benchmarks and proves its robustness.

6 Conclusion

The proposed method performs well compared to other methods, but there is a main drawback. The encoding method lacked a theoretical basis to successfully encode the information in the capital market, and this opaqueness is a rooted problem for deep learning. Second, the study focuses on its target policy, while there remains room for improvement with its neural network structure.

Specification of Hyperparameters.

References

Shin, S. Bu and S. Cho, “Automatic Financial Trading Agent for Low-risk Portfolio Management using Deep Reinforcement Learning”, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.03278.pdf
Li, P. Zhao, S. C. Hoi, and V. Gopalkrishnan, “PAMR: passive aggressive mean reversion strategy for portfolio selection,” Machine learning, vol. 87, pp. 221-258, 2012.
P. Helmbold, R. E. Schapire, Y. Singer, and M. K. Warmuth, “On‐line portfolio selection using multiplicative updates,” Mathematical Finance, vol. 8, pp. 325-347, 1998.

https://deepai.org/machine-learning-glossary-and-terms/softmax-layer#:~:text=The%20softmax%20function%20is%20a,can%20be%20interpreted%20as%20probabilities.

http://www.kasimte.com/2020/02/14/how-does-temperature-affect-softmax-in-machine-learning.html

https://towardsdatascience.com/reinforcement-learning-made-simple-part-2-solution-approaches-7e37cbf2334e

https://towardsdatascience.com/reinforcement-learning-explained-visually-part-4-q-learning-step-by-step-b65efb731d3e

https://towardsdatascience.com/reinforcement-learning-explained-visually-part-3-model-free-solutions-step-by-step-c4bbb2b72dcf

https://towardsdatascience.com/reinforcement-learning-explained-visually-part-5-deep-q-networks-step-by-step-5a5317197f4b

Automated product quality monitoring using artificial intelligence deep learning

How to maintain product quality with deep learning

May 5, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Main Category, Use Case, Use Cases/by Benjamin Aunkofer

Deep Learning helps companies to automate operative processes in many areas. Industrial companies in particular also benefit from product quality assurance by automated failure and defect detection. Computer Vision enables automation to identify scratches and cracks on product item surfaces. You will find more information about how this works in the following infografic from DATANOMIQ and pixolution you can download using the link below.

How to maintain product quality with automatic defect detection – Infographic

Download Infographic as PDF

Understanding Linear Regression with all Statistical Terms

May 2, 2022/in Data Science, Main Category/by M.Nithya Lakshmi

Linear Regression Model – This article is about understanding the linear regression with all the statistical terms.

What is Regression Analysis?

regression is an attempt to determine the relationship between one dependent and a series of other independent variables.

Regression analysis is a form of predictive modelling technique which investigates the relationship between a dependent (target) and independent variable (s) (predictor). This technique is used for forecasting, time series modelling and finding the causal effect relationship between the variables. For example, relationship between rash driving and number of road accidents by a driver is best studied through regression.

Why do we use Regression Analysis?

As mentioned above, regression analysis estimates the relationship between two or more variables. Let’s understand this with an easy example:

Let’s say, you want to estimate growth in sales of a company based on current economic conditions. You have the recent company data which indicates that the growth in sales is around two and a half times the growth in the economy. Using this insight, we can predict future sales of the company based on current & past information.

There are multiple benefits of using regression analysis. They are as follows:

It indicates the significant relationships between dependent variable and independent variable. It indicates the strength of impact of multiple independent variables on a dependent variable. Regression analysis also allows us to compare the effects of variables measured on different scales, such as the effect of price changes and the number of promotional activities. These benefits help market researchers / data analysts / data scientists to eliminate and evaluate the best set of variables to be used for building predictive models.

There are various kinds of regression techniques available to make predictions. These techniques are mostly driven by three metrics (number of independent variables, type of dependent variables and shape of regression line).

Number of independent variables, shape of regression line and type of dependent variable.

What is Linear Regression?

Linear Regression is the supervised Machine Learning model in which the model finds the best fit linear line between the independent and dependent variable i.e it finds the linear relationship between the dependent and independent variable.

Equation of Simple Linear Regression, where bo is the intercept, b1 is coefficient or slope, x is the independent variable and y is the dependent variable.

Equation of Multiple Linear Regression, where bo is the intercept, b1,b2,b3,b4…,bn are coefficients or slopes of the independent variables x1,x2,x3,x4…,xn and y is the $y=b_0+b_1x_1+b_2x_2+…+b_nx_n$ dependent variable.

Linear regression and its error termin per value

Mathematical Approach:

Residual/Error = Actual values – Predicted Values
Sum of Residuals/Errors = Sum(Actual- Predicted Values)
Square of Sum of Residuals/Errors = (Sum(Actual- Predicted Values))^2

$\sum(e_i^2)=\sum(y_i-\hat{y_i})^2$

Application of Linear Regression:

Real-world examples of linear regression models

Businesses often use linear regression to understand the relationship between advertising spending and revenue.
Medical researchers often use linear regression to understand the relationship between drug dosage and blood pressure of patients.
Agricultural scientists often use linear regression to measure the effect of fertilizer and water on crop yields.
Data scientists for professional sports teams often use linear regression to measure the effect that different training regimens have on player performance.
Stock predictions: A lot of businesses use linear regression models to predict how stocks will perform in the future. This is done by analyzing past data on stock prices and trends to identify patterns.
Predicting consumer behavior: Businesses can use linear regression to predict things like how much a customer is likely to spend. Regression models can also be used to predict consumer behavior. This can be helpful for things like targeted marketing and product development. For example, Walmart uses linear regression to predict what products will be popular in different regions of the country.

Assumptions of Linear Regression:

Linearity: It states that the dependent variable Y should be linearly related to independent variables. This assumption can be checked by plotting a scatter plot between both variables.

Normality: The X and Y variables should be normally distributed. Histograms, KDE plots, Q-Q plots can be used to check the Normality assumption.

Homoscedasticity: The variance of the error terms should be constant i.e the spread of residuals should be constant for all values of X. This assumption can be checked by plotting a residual plot. If the assumption is violated then the points will form a funnel shape otherwise they will be constant.

Independence/No Multicollinearity: The variables should be independent of each other i.e no correlation should be there between the independent variables. To check the assumption, we can use a correlation matrix or VIF score. If the VIF score is greater than 5 then the variables are highly correlated.

The error terms should be normally distributed. Q-Q plots and Histograms can be used to check the distribution of error terms.

No Autocorrelation: The error terms should be independent of each other. Autocorrelation can be tested using the Durbin Watson test. The null hypothesis assumes that there is no autocorrelation. The value of the test lies between 0 to 4. If the value of the test is 2 then there is no autocorrelation.

Variational Autoencoders

April 19, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Main Category, Use Cases/by Sunil Yadav

After Deep Autoregressive Models and Deep Generative Modelling, we will continue our discussion with Variational AutoEncoders (VAEs) after covering up DGM basics and AGMs. Variational autoencoders (VAEs) are a deep learning method to produce synthetic data (images, texts) by learning the latent representations of the training data. AGMs are sequential models and generate data based on previous data points by defining tractable conditionals. On the other hand, VAEs are using latent variable models to infer hidden structure in the underlying data by using the following intractable distribution function:

(1) $\begin{equation*} p_\theta(x) = \int p_\theta(x|z)p_\theta(z) dz. \end{equation*}$

The generative process using the above equation can be expressed in the form of a directed graph as shown in Figure ?? (the decoder part), where latent variable $z\sim p_\theta(z)$ produces meaningful information of $x \sim p_\theta(x|z)$ .

Figure 1: Architectures AE and VAE based on the bottleneck architecture. The decoder part work as
a generative model during inference.

Autoencoders

Autoencoders (AEs) are the key part of VAEs and are an unsupervised representation learning technique and consist of two main parts, the encoder and the decoder (see Figure ??). The encoders are deep neural networks (mostly convolutional neural networks with imaging data) to learn a lower-dimensional feature representation from training data. The learned latent feature representation $z$ usually has a much lower dimension than input $x$ and has the most dominant features of $x$ . The encoders are learning features by performing the convolution at different levels and compression is happening via max-pooling.

On the other hand, the decoders, which are also a deep convolutional neural network are reversing the encoder’s operation. They try to reconstruct the original data $x$ from the latent representation $z$ using the up-sampling convolutions. The decoders are pretty similar to VAEs generative models as shown in Figure 1, where synthetic images will be generated using the latent variable $z$ .

During the training of autoencoders, we would like to utilize the unlabeled data and try to minimize the following quadratic loss function:

(2) $\begin{equation*} \mathcal{L}(\theta, \phi) = ||x-\hat{x}||^2, \end{equation*}$

The above equation tries to minimize the distance between the original input and reconstructed image as shown in Figure 1.

Variational autoencoders

VAEs are motivated by the decoder part of AEs which can generate the data from latent representation and they are a probabilistic version of AEs which allows us to generate synthetic data with different attributes. VAE can be seen as the decoder part of AE, which learns the set parameters $\theta$ to approximate the conditional $p_\theta(x|z)$ to generate images based on a sample from a true prior, $z\sim p_\theta(z)$ . The true prior $p_\theta(z)$ are generally of Gaussian distribution.

Network Architecture

VAE has a quite similar architecture to AE except for the bottleneck part as shown in Figure 2. in AES, the encoder converts high dimensional input data to low dimensional latent representation in a vector form. On the other hand, VAE’s encoder learns the mean vector and standard deviation diagonal matrix such that $z\sim \matcal{N}(\mu_z, \Sigma_x)$ as it will be performing probabilistic generation of data. Therefore the encoder and decoder should be probabilistic.

Training

Similar to AGMs training, we would like to maximize the likelihood of the training data. The likelihood of the data for VAEs are mentioned in Equation 1 and the first term $p_\theta(x|z)$ will be approximated by neural network and the second term $p(x)$ prior distribution, which is a Gaussian function, therefore, both of them are tractable. However, the integration won’t be tractable because of the high dimensionality of data.

To solve this problem of intractability, the encoder part of AE was utilized to learn the set of parameters $\phi$ to approximate the conditional $q_\phi (z|x)$ . Furthermore, the conditional $q_\phi (z|x)$ will approximate the posterior $p_\theta (z|x)$ , which is intractable. This additional encoder part will help to derive a lower bound on the data likelihood that will make the likelihood function tractable. In the following we will derive the lower bound of the likelihood function:

(3) $\begin{equation*} \begin{flalign} \begin{aligned} log \: p_\theta (x) = & \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Bigg[log \: \frac{p_\theta (x|z) p_\theta (z)}{p_\theta (z|x)} \: \frac{q_\phi(z|x)}{q_\phi(z|x)}\Bigg] \\ = & \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Bigg[log \: p_\theta (x|z)\Bigg] - \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Bigg[log \: \frac{q_\phi (z|x)} {p_\theta (z)}\Bigg] + \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Bigg[log \: \frac{q_\phi (z|x)}{p_\theta (z|x)}\Bigg] \\ = & \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Big[log \: p_\theta (x|z)\Big] - \mathbf{D}_{KL}(q_\phi (z|x), p_\theta (z)) + \mathbf{D}_{KL}(q_\phi (z|x), p_\theta (z|x)). \end{aligned} \end{flalign} \end{equation*}$

In the above equation, the first line computes the likelihood using the logarithmic of $p_\theta (x)$ and then it is expanded using Bayes theorem with additional constant $q_\phi(z|x)$ multiplication. In the next line, it is expanded using the logarithmic rule and then rearranged. Furthermore, the last two terms in the second line are the definition of KL divergence and the third line is expressed in the same.

In the last line, the first term is representing the reconstruction loss and it will be approximated by the decoder network. This term can be estimated by the reparametrization trick \cite{}. The second term is KL divergence between prior distribution $p_\theta(z)$ and the encoder function $q_\phi (z|x)$ , both of these functions are following the Gaussian distribution and has the closed-form solution and are tractable. The last term is intractable due to $p_\theta (z|x)$ . However, KL divergence computes the distance between two probability densities and it is always positive. By using this property, the above equation can be approximated as:

(4) $\begin{equation*} log \: p_\theta (x)\geq \mathcal{L}(x, \phi, \theta) , \: \text{where} \: \mathcal{L}(x, \phi, \theta) = \mathbf{E}_{z\sim q_\phi(z|x)} \Big[log \: p_\theta (x|z)\Big] - \mathbf{D}_{KL}(q_\phi (z|x), p_\theta (z)). \end{equation*}$

In the above equation, the term $\mathcal{L}(x, \phi, \theta)$ is presenting the tractable lower bound for the optimization and is also termed as ELBO (Evidence Lower Bound Optimization). During the training process, we maximize ELBO using the following equation:

(5) $\begin{equation*} \operatorname*{argmax}_{\phi, \theta} \sum_{x\in X} \mathcal{L}(x, \phi, \theta). \end{equation*}$

Furthermore, the reconstruction loss term can be written using Equation 2 as the decoder output is assumed to be following Gaussian distribution. Therefore, this term can be easily transformed to mean squared error (MSE).

During the implementation, the architecture part is straightforward and can be found here. The user has to define the size of latent space, which will be vital in the reconstruction process. Furthermore, the loss function can be minimized using ADAM optimizer with a fixed batch size and a fixed number of epochs.

Figure 2: The results obtained from vanilla VAE (left) and a recent VAE-based generative
model NVAE (right)

In the above, we are showing the quality improvement since VAE was introduced by Kingma and
Welling [KW14]. NVAE is a relatively new method using a deep hierarchical VAE [VK21].

Summary

In this blog, we discussed variational autoencoders along with the basics of autoencoders. We covered
the main difference between AEs and VAEs along with the derivation of lower bound in VAEs. We
have shown using two different VAE based methods that VAE is still active research because in general,
it produces a blurry outcome.

References

[KW14] Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2014.
[VK21] Arash Vahdat and Jan Kautz. Nvae: A deep hierarchical variational autoencoder, 2021.

Air Quality Forecasting Python Project

March 20, 2022/in Data Mining, Data Science, Python, Use Cases/by Shivani Padaya

You will find the full python code and all visuals for this article here in this gitlab repository. The repository contains a series of analysis, transforms and forecasting models frequently used when dealing with time series. The aim of this repository is to showcase how to model time series from the scratch, for this we are using a real usecase dataset

This project forecast the Carbon Dioxide (Co2) emission levels yearly. Most of the organizations have to follow government norms with respect to Co2 emissions and they have to pay charges accordingly, so this project will forecast the Co2 levels so that organizations can follow the norms and pay in advance based on the forecasted values. In any data science project the main component is data, for this project the data was provided by the company, from here time series concept comes into the picture. The dataset for this project contains 215 entries and two components which are Year and Co2 emissions which is univariate time series as there is only one dependent variable Co2 which depends on time. from year 1800 to year 2014 Co2 levels were present in the dataset.

The dataset used: The dataset contains yearly Co2 emmisions levels. data from 1800 to 2014 sampled every 1 year. The dataset is non stationary so we have to use differenced time series for forecasting.

After getting data the next step is to analyze the time series data. This process is done by using Python. The data was present in excel file so first we need to read that excel file. This task is done by using Pandas which is python libraries to creates Pandas Data Frame. After that preprocessing like changing data types of time from object to DateTime performed for the coding purpose. Time series contain 4 main components Level, Trend, Seasonality and Noise. To study this component, we need to decompose our time series so that we can batter understand our time series and we can choose the forecasting model accordingly because each component behave different on the model. also by decomposing we can identify that the time series is multiplicative or additive.

CO2 emissions – plotted via python pandas / matplotlib

Decomposing time series using python statesmodels libraries we get to know trend, seasonality and residual component separately. the components multiply together to make the time series multiplicative and in additive time series components added together. Taking the deep dive to understand the trend component, moving average of 10 steps were applied which shows nonlinear upward trend, fit the linear regression model to check the trend which shows upward trend. talking about seasonality there were combination of multiple patterns over time period which is common in real world time series data. capturing the white noise is difficult in this type of data. the time series contains values from 1800 where the Co2 values are less then 1 because of no human activities so levels were decreasing. By the time numbers of industries and human activities are rapidly increasing which causes Co2 levels rapidly increasing. In time series the highest Co2 emission level was 18.7 in 1979. It was challenging to decide whether to consider this values which are less then 0.5 as white noise or not because 30% of the Co2 values were less then 1, in real world looking at current scenario the chances of Co2 emission level being 0 is near to impossible still there are chances that Co2 levels can be 0.0005. So considering each data point as a valuable information we refused to remove that entries.

Next step is to create Lag plot so we can see the correlation between the current year Co2 level and previous year Co2 level. the plot was linear which shows high correlation so we can say that the current Co2 levels and previous levels have strong relationship. the randomness of the data were measured by plotting autocorrelation graph. the autocorrelation graph shows smooth curves which indicates the time series is non–stationary thus next step is to make time series stationary. in non–stationary time series, summary statistics like mean and variance change over time.

To make time series stationary we have to remove trend and seasonality from it. Before that we use dickey fuller test to make sure our time series is non–stationary. the test was done by using python, and the test gives p–value as output. here the null hypothesis is that the data is non–stationary while alternate hypothesis is that the data is stationary, in this case the significance values is 0.05 and the p–values which is given by dickey fuller test is greater than 0.05 hence we failed to reject null hypothesis so we can say the time series is non–stationery. Differencing is one of the techniques to make time series stationary. On this time series, first order differencing technique applied to make the time series stationary. In first order differencing we have to subtract previous value from current value for all the data points. also different transformations like log, sqrt and reciprocal were applied in the context of making the time series stationary. Smoothing techniques like simple moving average, exponential weighted moving average, simple exponential smoothing and double exponential smoothing techniques can be applied to remove the variation between time stamps and to see the smooth curves.

Smoothing techniques also used to observe trend in time series as well as to predict the future values. But performance of other models was good compared to smoothing techniques. First 200 entries taken to train the model and remaining last for testing the performance of the model. performance of different models measured by Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as we are predicting future Co2 emissions so basically it is regression problem. RMSE is calculated by root of the average of squared difference between actual values and predicted values by the model on testing data. Here RMSE values were calculated using python sklearn library. For model building two approaches are there, one is data–driven and another one is model based. models from both the approaches were applied to find the best fitted model. ARIMA model gives the best results for this kind of dataset as the model were trained on differenced time series. The ARIMA model predicts a given time series based on its own past values. It can be used for any non–seasonal series of numbers that exhibits patterns and is not a series of random events. ARIMA takes 3 parameters which are AR, MA and the order of difference. Hyper parameter tuning technique gives best parameters for the model by trying different sets of parameters. Although The autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation plots can be use to decide AR and MA parameter because partial autocorrelation function shows the partial correlation of a stationary time series with its own lagged values so using PACF we can decide the value of AR and from ACF we can decide the value of MA parameter as ACF shows how data points in a time series are related.

Yearly difference of CO2 emissions – ARIMA Prediction

Apart from ARIMA, few other model were trained which are AR, ARMA, Simple Linear Regression, Quadratic method, Holts winter exponential smoothing, Ridge and Lasso Regression, LGBM and XGboost methods, Recurrent neural network (RNN) – Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) and Fbprophet. I would like to mention my experience with LSTM here because it is another model which gives good result as ARIMA. the reason for not choosing LSTM as final model is its complexity. As ARIMA is giving appropriate results and it is simple to understand and requires less dependencies. while using lstm, lot of data preprocessing and other dependencies required, the dataset was small thus we used to train the model on CPU, otherwise gpu is required to train the LSTM model. we face one more challenge in deployment part. the challenge is to get the data into original form because the model was trained on differenced time series, so it will predict the future values in differenced format. After lot of research on the internet and by deeply understanding mathematical concepts finally we got the solution for it. solution for this issue is we have to add previous value from the original data from into first order differencing and then we have to add the last value of this time series into predicted values. To create the user interface streamlit was used, it is commonly used python library. the pickle file of the ARIMA model were used to predict the future values based on user input. The limit for forecasting is the year 2050. The project was uploaded on google cloud platform. so the flow is, first the starting year from which user want to forecast was taken and the end year till which year user want to forecast was taken and then according to the range of this inputs the prediction takes place. so by taking the inputs the pickle file will produce the future Co2 emissions in differenced format, then the values will be converted to original format and then the original values will be displayed on the user interface as well as the interactive line graph were displayed on the interface.

You will find the full python code and all visuals for this article here in this gitlab repository.

Deep Autoregressive Models

March 15, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Mining, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Main Category/by Sunil Yadav

In this blog article, we will discuss about deep autoregressive generative models (AGM). Autoregressive models were originated from economics and social science literature on time-series data where obser- vations from the previous steps are used to predict the value at the current and at future time steps [SS05]. Autoregression models can be expressed as:

$\begin{equation*} x_{t+1}= \sum_i^t \alpha_i x_{t-i} + c_i, \end{equation*}$

where the terms $\alpha$ and $c$ are constants to define the contributions of previous samples $x_i$ for the future value prediction. In the other words, autoregressive deep generative models are directed and fully observed models where outcome of the data completely depends on the previous data points as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Autoregressive directed graph.

Let’s consider $x \sim X$ , where $X$ is a set of images and each images is $n-$ dimensional (n pixels). Then the prediction of new data pixel will be depending all the previously predicted pixels (Figure ?? shows the one row of pixels from an image). Referring to our last blog, deep generative models (DGMs) aim to learn the data distribution $p_\theta(x)$ of the given training data and by following the chain rule of the probability, we can express it as:

(1) $\begin{equation*} p_\theta(x) = \prod_{i=1}^n p_\theta(x_i | x_1, x_2, \dots , x_{i-1}) \end{equation*}$

The above equation modeling the data distribution explicitly based on the pixel conditionals, which are tractable (exact likelihood estimation). The right hand side of the above equation is a complex distribution and can be represented by any possible distribution of $n$ random variables. On the other hand, these kind of representation can have exponential space complexity. Therefore, in autoregressive generative models (AGM), these conditionals are approximated/parameterized by neural networks.

Training

As AGMs are based on tractable likelihood estimation, during the training process these methods maximize the likelihood of images over the given training data $X$ and it can be expressed as:

(2) $\begin{equation*} \max_{\theta} \sum_{x\sim X} log \: p_\theta (x) = \max_{\theta} \sum_{x\sim X} \sum_{i=1}^n log \: p_\theta (x_i | x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{i-1}) \end{equation*}$

The above expression is appearing because of the fact that DGMs try to minimize the distance between the distribution of the training data and the distribution of the generated data (please refer to our last blog). The distance between two distribution can be computed using KL-divergence:

(3) $\begin{equation*} \min_{\theta} d_{KL}(p_d (x),p_\theta (x)) = log\: p_d(x) - log \: p_\theta(x) \end{equation*}$

In the above equation the term $p_d(x)$ does not depend on $\theta$ , therefore, whole equation can be shortened to Equation 2, which represents the MLE (maximum likelihood estimation) objective to learn the model parameter $\theta$ by maximizing the log likelihood of the training images $X$ . From implementation point of view, the MLE objective can be optimized using the variations of stochastic gradient (ADAM, RMSProp, etc.) on mini-batches.

Network Architectures

As we are discussing deep generative models, here, we would like to discuss the deep aspect of AGMs. The parameterization of the conditionals mentioned in Equation 1 can be realized by different kind of network architectures. In the literature, several network architectures are proposed to increase their receptive fields and memory, allowing more complex distributions to be learned. Here, we are mentioning a couple of well known architectures, which are widely used in deep AGMs:

Fully-visible sigmoid belief network (FVSBN): FVSBN is the simplest network without any hidden units and it is a linear combination of the input elements followed by a sigmoid function to keep output between 0 and 1. The positive aspects of this network is simple design and the total number of parameters in the model is quadratic which is much smaller compared to exponential [GHCC15].
Neural autoregressive density estimator (NADE): To increase the effectiveness of FVSBN, the simplest idea would be to use one hidden layer neural network instead of logistic regression. NADE is an alternate MLP-based parameterization and more effective compared to FVSBN [LM11].
Masked autoencoder density distribution (MADE): Here, the standard autoencoder neural networks are modified such that it works as an efficient generative models. MADE masks the parameters to follow the autoregressive property, where the current sample is reconstructed using previous samples in a given ordering [GGML15].
PixelRNN/PixelCNN: These architecture are introducced by Google Deepmind in 2016 and utilizing the sequential property of the AGMs with recurrent and convolutional neural networks.

Figure 2: Different autoregressive architectures (image source from [LM11]).

Results using different architectures (images source https://deepgenerativemodels.github.io).

It uses two different RNN architectures (Unidirectional LSTM and Bidirectional LSTM) to generate pixels horizontally and horizontally-vertically respectively. Furthermore, it ulizes residual connection to speed up the convergence and masked convolution to condition the different channels of images. PixelCNN applies several convolutional layers to preserve spatial resolution and increase the receptive fields. Furthermore, masking is applied to use only the previous pixels. PixelCNN is faster in training compared to PixelRNN. However, the outcome quality is better with PixelRNN [vdOKK16].

Summary

In this blog article, we discussed about deep autoregressive models in details with the mathematical foundation. Furthermore, we discussed about the training procedure including the summary of different network architectures. We did not discuss network architectures in details, we would continue the discussion of PixelCNN and its variations in upcoming blogs.

References

[GGML15] Mathieu Germain, Karol Gregor, Iain Murray, and Hugo Larochelle. MADE: masked autoencoder for distribution estimation. CoRR, abs/1502.03509, 2015.

[GHCC15] Zhe Gan, Ricardo Henao, David Carlson, and Lawrence Carin. Learning Deep Sigmoid Belief Networks with Data Augmentation. In Guy Lebanon and S. V. N. Vishwanathan, editors, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
and Statistics, volume 38 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 268–276, San Diego, California, USA, 09–12 May 2015. PMLR.

[LM11] Hugo Larochelle and Iain Murray. The neural autoregressive distribution estimator. In Geoffrey Gordon, David Dunson, and Miroslav Dudík, editors, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 15 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 29–37, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 11–13 Apr 2011.
PMLR.

[SS05] Robert H. Shumway and David S. Stoffer. Time Series Analysis and Its Applications (Springer Texts in Statistics). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.

[vdOKK16] A ̈aron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Pixel recurrent neural
networks. CoRR, abs/1601.06759, 2016

How to ensure occupational safety using Deep Learning – Infographic

March 3, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Insights, Machine Learning, Main Category, Use Cases/by Benjamin Aunkofer

In cooperation between DATANOMIQ, my consulting company for data science, business intelligence and process mining, and Pixolution, a specialist for computer vision with deep learning, we have created an infographic (PDF) about a very special use case for companies with deep learning: How to ensure occupational safety through automatic risk detection using using Deep Learning AI.

How to ensure occupational safety through automatic risk detection using Deep Learning – Infographic

Infographic as PDF Download

Four essential ideas for making reinforcement learning and dynamic programming more effective

March 1, 2022/in Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics/by Yasuto Tamura

This is the third article of the series My elaborate study notes on reinforcement learning.

1, Some excuses for writing another article on the same topic

In the last article I explained policy iteration and value iteration of dynamic programming (DP) because DP is the foundation of reinforcement learning (RL). And in fact this article is a kind of a duplicate of the last one. Even though I also tried my best on the last article, I would say it was for superficial understanding of how those algorithms are implemented. I think that was not enough for the following two reasons. The first reason is that what I explained in the last article was virtually just about how to follow pseudocode of those algorithms like other study materials. I tried to explain them with a simple example and some diagrams. But in practice it is not realistic to think about such diagrams all the time. Also writing down Bellman equations every time is exhausting. Thus I would like to introduce Bellman operators, powerful tools for denoting Bellman equations briefly. Bellman operators would help you learn RL at an easier and more abstract level.

The second reason is that relations of values and policies are important points in many of RL algorithms. And simply, one article is not enough to realize this fact. In the last article I explained that policy iteration of DP separately and interactively updates a value and a policy. These procedures can be seen in many RL algorithms. Especially a family of algorithms named actor critic methods use this structure more explicitly. In the algorithms “actor” is in charge of a policy and a “critic” is in charge of a value. Just as the “critic” gives some feedback to the “actor” and the “actor” update his acting style, the value gives some signals to the policy for updating itself. Some people say RL algorithms are generally about how to design those “actors” and “critics.” In some cases actors can be very influential, but in other cases the other side is more powerful. In order to be more conscious about these interactive relations of policies and values, I have to dig the ideas behind policy iteration and value iteration, but with simpler notations.

Even though this article shares a lot with the last one, without pinning down the points I am going to explain, your study of RL could be just a repetition of following pseudocode of each algorithm. But instead I would rather prefer to make more organic links between the algorithms while studying RL. This article might be tiresome to read since it is mainly theoretical sides of DP or RL. But I would like you to patiently read through this to more effectively learn upcoming RL algorithms, and I did my best to explain them again in graphical ways.

2, RL and plannings as tree structures

Some tree structures have appeared so far in my article, but some readers might be still confused how to look at this. I must admit I lacked enough explanations on them. Thus I am going to review Bellman equation and give overall instructions on how to see my graphs. I am trying to discover effective and intuitive ways of showing DP or RL ideas. If there is something unclear of if you have any suggestions, please feel free to leave a comment or send me an email.

I got inspiration from Backup diagrams of Bellman equations introduced in the book by Barto and Sutton when I started making the graphs in this article series. The back up diagrams are basic units of tree structures in RL, and they are composed of white nodes showing states $s$ and black nodes showing actions $a$ . And when an agent goes from a node $a$ to the next state $s'$ , it gets a corresponding reward $r$ . As I explained in the second article, a value of a state $s$ is calculated by considering all possible actions and corresponding next states $s'$ , and resulting rewards $r$ , starting from $s$ . And the backup diagram shows the essence of how a value of $s$ is calculated.

*Please let me call this figure a backup diagram of “Bellman-equation-like recurrence relation,” instead of Bellman equation. Bellman equation holds only when $v_{\pi}(s)$ is known, and $v_{\pi}(s)$ is usually calculated from the recurrence relation. We are going to see this fact in the rest part of this article, making uses of Bellman operators.

Let’s again take a look at the definition of $v_{\pi}(s)$ , a value of a state $s$ for a policy $\pi$ . $v_{\pi}(s)$ is defined as an expectation of a sum of upcoming rewards $R_t$ , given that the state at the time step $t$ is $s$ . (Capital letters are random variables and small letters are their realized values.)

$v_{\pi} (s)\doteq \mathbb{E}_{\pi} [ G_t | S_t =s ] =\mathbb{E}_{\pi} [ R_{t+1} + \gamma R_{t+2} + \gamma ^2 R_{t+3} + \cdots + \gamma ^{T-t -1} R_{T} |S_t =s]$

*To be exact, we need to take the limit of $T$ like $T \to \infty$ . But the number $T$ is limited in practical discussions, so please don’t care so much about very exact definitions of value functions in my article series.

But considering all the combinations of actions and corresponding rewards are not realistic, thus Bellman equation is defined recursively as follows.

$v_{\pi} (s)= \mathbb{E}_{\pi} [ R_{t+1} + \gamma v_{\pi}(S_{t+1}) | S_t =s ]$

But when you want to calculate $v_{\pi} (s)$ at the left side, $v_{\pi} (s)$ at the right side is supposed to be unknown, so we use the following recurrence relation.

$v_{k+1} (s)\doteq \mathbb{E}_{\pi} [ R_{t+1} + \gamma v_{k}(S_{t+1}) | S_t =s ]$

And the operation of calculating an expectation with $\mathbb{E}_{\pi}$ , namely a probabilistic sum of future rewards is defined as follows.

$v_{k+1} (s) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi} [R_{t+1} + \gamma v_k (S_{t+1}) | S_t = s] \doteq \sum_a {\pi(a|s)} \sum_{s', r} {p(s', r|s, a)[r + \gamma v_k(s')]}$

$\pi(a|s)$ are policies, and $p(s', r|s, a)$ are probabilities of transitions. Policies are probabilities of taking an action $a$ given an agent being in a state $s$ . But agents cannot necessarily move do that based on their policies. Some randomness or uncertainty of movements are taken into consideration, and they are modeled as probabilities of transitions. In my article, I would like you to see the equation above as a sum of $branch(s, a)$ weighted by $\pi(a|s)$ or a sum of $twig(r, s')$ weighted by $\pi(a|s), p(s' | s, a)$ . “Branches” and “twigs” are terms which I coined.

*Even though especially values of $branch(s, a)$ are important when you actually implement DP, they are not explicitly defined with certain functions in most study materials on DP.

I think what makes the backup diagram confusing at the first glance is that nodes of states in white have two layers, a layer $s$ and the one of $s'$ . But the node $s$ is included in the nodes of $s'$ . Let’s take an example of calculating the Bellman-equation-like recurrence relations with a grid map environment. The transitions on the backup diagram should be first seen as below to avoid confusion. Even though the original backup diagrams have only one root node and have three layers, in actual models of environments transitions of agents are modeled as arows going back and forth between white and black nodes.

But in DP values of states, namely white nodes have to be updated with older values. That is why the original backup diagrams have three layers. For exmple, the value of a value $v_{k+1}(9)$ is calculated like in the figure below, using values of $v_{k}(s')$ . As I explained earlier, the value of the state $9$ is a sum of $branch(s, a)$ , weighted by $\pi(\rightarrow | 9), \pi(\downarrow | 9), \pi(\leftarrow | 9), \pi(\uparrow | 9)$ . And I showed the weight as strength of purple color of the arrows. $r_a, r_b, r_c, r_d$ are corresponding rewards of each transition. And importantly, the Bellman-equation-like operation, whish is a part of DP, is conducted inside the agent. The agent does not have to actually move, and that is what planning is all about.

And DP, or more exactly policy evaluation, calculating the expectation over all the states, repeatedly. An important fact is, arrows in the backup diagram are pointing backward compared to the direction of value functions being updated, from $v_{k}(s)$ to $v_{k+1}(s)$ . I tried to show the idea that values $v_{k}(s)$ are backed up to calculate $v_{k+1}(s)$ . In my article series, with the right side of the figure below, I make it a rule to show the ideas that a model of an environment is known and it is updated recursively.

3, Types of policies

As I said in the first article, the ultimate purpose of DP or RL is finding the optimal policies. With optimal policies agents are the most likely to maximize rewards they get in environments. And policies $\pi$ determine the values of states as value functions $v_{\pi}(s)$ . Or policies can be obtained from value functions. This structure of interactively updating values and policies is called general policy iteration (GPI) in the book by Barto and Sutton.

Source: Richard S. Sutton, Andrew G. Barto, “Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction,” MIT Press, (2018)

However I have been using the term “a policy” without exactly defining it. There are several types of policies, and distinguishing them is more or less important in the next sections. But I would not like you to think too much about that. In conclusion, only very limited types of policies are mainly discussed in RL. Only $\Pi ^{\text{S}}, \Pi ^{\text{SD}}$ in the figure below are of interest when you learn RL as a beginner. I am going to explain what each set of policies means one by one.

In fact we have been discussing a set of policies $\Pi ^{\text{S}}$ , which mean probabilistic Markov policies. Remember that in the first article I explained Markov decision processes can be described like diagrams of daily routines. For example, the diagrams below are my daily routines. The indexes $t$ denote days. In either of states “Home,” “Lab,” and “Starbucks,” I take an action to another state. The numbers in black are probabilities of taking the actions, and those in orange are rewards of taking the actions. I also explained that the ultimate purpose of planning with DP is to find the optimal policy in this state transition diagram.

Before explaining each type of sequences of policies, let me formulate probabilistic Markov policies at first. A set of probabilistic Markov policies is defined as follows.
$\Pi \doteq \biggl\{ \pi : \mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{S} \rightarrow [0, 1]: \sum_{a \in \mathcal{A}}{\pi (a|s) =1, \forall s \in \mathcal{S} } \biggr\}$
This means $\pi (a|s)$ maps any combinations of an action $a\in\mathcal{A}$ and a state $s \in\mathcal{S}$ to a probability. The diagram above means you choose a policy $\pi$ from the set $\Pi$ , and you use the policy every time step $t$ , I mean every day. A repetitive sequence of the same probabilistic Markov policy $\pi$ is defined as $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\text{s}} \doteq \{\pi, \pi, \dots \} \in \boldsymbol{\Pi} ^{\text{S}}$ . And a set of such stationary Markov policy sequences is denoted as $\boldsymbol{\Pi} ^{\text{S}}$ .

*As I formulated in the last articles, policies are different from probabilities of transitions. Even if you take take an action probabilistically, the action cannot necessarily be finished. Thus probabilities of transitions depend on combinations of policies and the agents or the environments.

But when I just want to focus on works like a robot, I give up living my life. I abandon efforts of giving even the slightest variations to my life, and I just deterministically take next actions every day. In this case, we can say the policies are stationary and deterministic. The set of such policies is defined as below. $\pi ^{\text{d}}$ are called deterministic policies. $\Pi ^\text{d} \doteq \bigl\{ \pi ^\text{d} : \mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{S} \bigr\}$

I think it is normal policies change from day to day, even if people also have only options of “Home,” “Lab,” or “Starbucks.” These cases are normal Markov policies, and you choose a policy $\pi$ from $\Pi$ every time step.

And the resulting sequences of policies and the set of the sequences are defined as $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\text{m}} \doteq \{\pi_0, \pi_1, \dots \} \in \boldsymbol{\Pi} ^{\text{M}}, \quad \pi_t \in \Pi$ .

In real world, an assumption of Markov decision process is quite unrealistic because your strategies constantly change depending on what you have done or gained so far. Possibilities of going to a Starbucks depend on what you have done in the week so far. You might order a cup of frappucino as a little something for your exhausting working days. There might be some communications on what you order then with clerks. And such experiences would affect your behaviors of going to Starbucks again. Such general and realistic policies are called history-dependent policies.

*Going to Starbucks everyday like a Markov decision process and deterministically ordering a cupt of hot black coffee is supposed to be unrealistic. Even if clerks start heating a mug as soon as I enter the shop.

In history-dependent cases, your policies depend on your states, actions, and rewards so far. In this case you take actions based on history-dependent policies $\pi _{t}^{\text{h}}$ . However as I said, only $\Pi ^{\text{S}}, \Pi ^{\text{SD}}$ are important in my articles. And history-dependent policies are discussed only in partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP), which this article series is not going to cover. Thus you have only to take a brief look at how history-dependent ones are defined.

History-dependent policies are the types of the most general policies. In order to formulate history-dependent policies, we first have to formulate histories. Histories $h_t \in \mathcal{H}_t$ in the context of DP or RL are defined as follows.

$h_t \doteq \{s_0, a_0, r_0, \dots , s_{t-1}, a_{t-1}, r_{t}, s_t\}$

Given the histories which I have defined, a history dependent policy is defined as follows.

$\pi_{t}^{\text{h}}(a|h_t) \doteq \text{Pr}(A=a | H_t = h_t)$

This means a probability of taking an action $a$ given a history $h_t$ . It might be more understandable with the graphical model below, which I showed also in the first article. In the graphical model, $H_t$ is a random variable, and $h_t$ is its realized value.

A set of history-dependent policies is defined as follows.

$\Pi _{t}^{\text{h}} \doteq \biggl\{ \pi _{t}^{h} : \mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{H}_t \rightarrow [0, 1]: \sum_{a \in \mathcal{A}}{\pi_{t}^{\text{h}} (a|h_{t}) =1 } \biggr\}$

And a set of sequences of history-dependent policies is $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{\text{h}} \doteq \{\pi^{\text{h}}_0, \pi^{\text{h}}_1, \dots \} \in \boldsymbol{\Pi} ^{\text{H}}, \quad \pi_{t}^{\text{h}} \in \Pi_{t}^{\text{h}}$ .

In fact I have not defined the optimal value function $v_{\ast}(s)$ or $\pi_{\ast}$ in my article series yet. I must admit it was not good to discuss DP without even defining the important ideas. But now that we have learnt types of policies, it should be less confusing to introduce their more precise definitions now. The optimal value function $v_{\ast}: \mathcal{S} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is defined as the maximum value functions for all states $s$ , with respect to any types of sequences of policies $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ .

$v_{\ast} \doteq \max_{\boldsymbol{\pi}\in \boldsymbol{\Pi}^{\text{H}}}{v_{\boldsymbol{\pi}(s)}}, \quad \forall s \mathbb{R}$

And the optimal policy is defined as the policy which satisfies the equation below.

$v_{\ast}(s) = v_{\pi ^{\ast}}(s), \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$

The optimal value function is optimal with respect to all the types of sequences of policies, as you can see from the definition. However in fact, it is known that the optimal policy is a deterministic Markov policy $\pi ^\text{d} \in \Pi ^\text{d}$ . That means, in the example graphical models I displayed, you just have to deterministically go back and forth between the lab and the home in order to maximize value function, never stopping by at a Starbucks. Also you do not have to change your plans depending on days.

And when all the values of the states are maximized, you can easily calculate the optimal deterministic policy of your everyday routine. Thus in DP, you first need to maximize the values of the states. I am going to explain this fact of DP more precisely in the next section. Combined with some other important mathematical features of DP, you will have clearer vision on what DP is doing.

*I might have to precisely explain how $v_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}(s)$ is defined. But to make things easier for now, let me skip ore precise formulations. Value functions are defined as expectations of rewards with respect to a single policy or a sequence of policies. You have only to keep it in mind that $v_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}(s)$ is a value function resulting from taking actions based on $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ . And $v_{\pi}(s)$ , which we have been mainly discussing, is a value function based on only a single policy $\pi$ .

*Please keep it in mind that these diagrams are not anything like exaggeratedly simplified models for explaining RL. That is my life.

3, Key components of DP

*Even though notations on this article series are based on the book by Barto and Sutton, the discussions in this section are, based on a Japanese book named “Machine Learning Professional Series: Reinforcement Learning” by Tetsurou Morimura, which I call “the whale book.” There is a slight difference in how they calculate Bellman equations. In the book by Barto and Sutton, expectations are calculated also with respect to rewards $r$ , but not in the whale book. I think discussions in the whale book can be extended to the cases in the book by Barto and Sutton, but just in case please bear that in mind.

In order to make organic links between the RL algorithms you are going to encounter, I think you should realize DP algorithms you have learned in the last article are composed of some essential ideas about DP. As I stressed in the first article, RL is equal to solving planning problems, including DP, by sampling data through trial-and-error-like behaviors of agents. Thus in other words, you approximate DP-like calculations with batch data or online data. In order to see how to approximate such DP-like calculations, you have to know more about features of those calculations. Those features are derived from some mathematical propositions about DP. But effortlessly introducing them one by one would be just confusing, so I tired extracting some essences. And the figures below demonstrate the ideas.

The figures above express the following facts about DP:

DP is a repetition of Bellman-equation-like operations, and they can be simply denoted with Bellman operators $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ or $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ .
The value function for a policy $\pi$ is calculated by solving a Bellman equation, but in practice you approximately solve it by repeatedly using Bellman operators.
There exists an optimal policy $\pi ^{\ast} \in \Pi ^{\text{d}}$ , which is deterministic. And it is an optimal policy if and only if it satisfies the Bellman expectation equation $v^{\ast}(s) = (\mathsf{B}_{\pi ^{\ast}} v^{\ast})(s), \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$ , with the optimal value function $v^{\ast}(s)$ .
With a better deterministic policy, you get a better value function. And eventually both the value function and the policy become optimal.

Let’s take a close look at what each of them means.

(1) Bellman operator

In the last article, I explained the Bellman equation and recurrence relations derived from it. And they are the basic ideas leading to various RL algorithms. The Bellman equation itself is not so complicated, and I showed its derivation in the last article. You just have to be careful about variables in calculation of expectations. However writing the equations or recurrence relations every time would be tiresome and confusing. And in practice we need to apply the recurrence relation many times. In order to avoid writing down the Bellman equation every time, let me introduce a powerful notation for simplifying the calculations: I am going to discuss RL making uses of Bellman operators from now on.

First of all, a Bellman expectation operator $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}: \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{S}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{S}}$ , or rather an application of a Bellman expectation operator on any state functions $v: \mathcal{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined as below.

$(\mathsf{B}_{\pi} (v))(s) \doteq \sum_{a}{\pi (a|s)} \sum_{s'}{p(s'| s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v (s') \biggr]}, \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$

For simplicity, I am going to denote the left side of the equation as $(\mathsf{B}_{\pi} (v)) (s)=\mathsf{B}_{\pi} (v) \doteq \mathsf{B}_{\pi} v$ . In the last article I explained that when $v_{0}(s)$ is an arbitrarily initialized value function, a sequence of value functions $(v_{0}(s), v_{1}(s), \dots, v_{k}(s), \dots)$ converge to $v_{\pi}(s)$ for a fixed probabilistic policy $\pi$ , by repeatedly applying the recurrence relation below.

$v_{k+1} = \sum_{a}{\pi (a|s)} \sum_{s'}{p(s'| s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v_{k} (s') \biggr]}$

With the Bellman expectation operator, the recurrence relation above is written as follows.

$v_{k+1} = \mathsf{B}_{\pi} v_{k}$

Thus $v_{k}$ is obtained by applying $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ to $v_{0}$ $k$ times in total. Such operation is denoted as follows.

$v_{k} = (\mathsf{B}_{\pi}\dots (\mathsf{B}_{\pi} v_{0})\dots) \doteq \mathsf{B}_{\pi} \dots \mathsf{B}_{\pi} v_{0} \doteq \mathsf{B}^k_{\pi} v_{0}$

As I have just mentioned, $\mathsf{B}^k_{\pi} v_{0}$ converges to $v_{\pi}(s)$ , thus the following equation holds.

$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \mathsf{B}^k_{\pi} v_{0} = v_{\pi}(s)$

I have to admit I am merely talking about how to change notations of the discussions in the last article, but introducing Bellman operators makes it much easier to learn or explain DP or RL as the figure below shows.

Just as well, a Bellman optimality operator $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}: \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{S}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{S}}$ is defined as follows.

$(\mathsf{B}_{\ast} v)(s) \doteq \max_{a} \sum_{s'}{p(s' | s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v(s') \biggr]}, \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$

Also the notation with a Bellman optimality operators can be simplified as $(\mathsf{B}_{\ast} v)(s) \doteq \mathsf{B}_{\ast} v$ . With a Bellman optimality operator, you can get a recurrence relation $v_{k+1} = \mathsf{B}_{\ast} v_{k}$ . Multiple applications of Bellman optimality operators can be written down as below.

$v_{k} = (\mathsf{B}_{\ast}\dots (\mathsf{B}_{\ast} v_{0})\dots) \doteq \mathsf{B}_{\ast} \dots \mathsf{B}_{\ast} v_{0} \doteq \mathsf{B}^k_{\ast} v_{0}$

Please keep it in mind that this operator does not depend on policies $\pi$ . And an important fact is that any initial value function $v_0$ converges to the optimal value function $v_{\ast}$ .

$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \mathsf{B}^k_{\ast} v_{0} = v_{\ast}(s)$

Thus any initial value functions converge to the the optimal value function by repeatedly applying Bellman optimality operators. This is almost equal to value iteration algorithm, which I explained in the last article. And notations of value iteration can be also simplified by introducing the Bellman optimality operator like in the figure below.

Again, I would like you to pay attention to how value iteration works. The optimal value function $v_{\ast}(s)$ is supposed to be maximum with respect to any sequences of policies $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ , from its definition. However the optimal value function $v_{\ast}(s)$ can be obtained with a single bellman optimality operator $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ , never caring about policies. Obtaining the optimal value function is crucial in DP problems as I explain in the next topic. And at least one way to do that is guaranteed with uses of a $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ .

*We have seen a case of applying the same Bellman expectation operator on a fixed policy $\pi$ , but you can use different Bellman operators on different policies varying from time steps to time steps. To be more concrete, assume that you have a sequence of Markov policies $\boldsymbol{\pi} = \{ \pi_{0},\pi_{1}, \dots, \pi_{k-1} \}\in \boldsymbol{\Pi} ^{\text{M}}$ . If you apply Bellman operators of the policies one by one in an order of $\pi_{k-1}, \pi_{k-2}, \dots, \pi_{k-1}$ on a state function $v$ , the resulting state function is calculated as below.

$\mathsf{B}_{\pi_0}(\mathsf{B}_{\pi_1}\dots (\mathsf{B}_{\pi_{k-1}} v)\dots) \doteq \mathsf{B}_{\pi_0}\mathsf{B}_{\pi_1} \dots \mathsf{B}_{\pi_{k-1}} v \doteq \mathsf{B}^k_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$

When $\boldsymbol{\pi} = \{ \pi_{0},\pi_{1}, \dots, \pi_{k-1} \}$ , we can also discuss convergence of $v_{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ , but that is just confusing. Please let me know if you are interested.

(2) Policy evaluation

Policy evaluation is in short calculating $v_{\pi}$ , the value function for a policy $\pi$ . And in theory it can be calculated by solving a Bellman expectation equation, which I have already introduced.

$v(s) = \sum_{a}{\pi (a|s)} \sum_{s'}{p(s'| s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v (s') \biggr]}$

Using a Bellman operator, which I have introduced in the last topic, the equation above can be written $v(s) = \mathsf{B}_{\pi} v(s)$ . But whichever the notation is, the equation holds when the value function $v(s)$ is $v_{\pi}(s)$ . You have already seen the major way of how to calculate $v_{\pi}$ in (1), or also in the last article. You have only to multiply the same Belman expectation operator $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ to any initial value funtions $v_{initial}(s)$ .

This process can be seen in this way: any initial value functions $v_{initial}(s)$ little by little converge to $v_{\pi}(s)$ as the same Bellman expectation operator $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ is applied. And when a $v_{initial}(s)$ converges to $v_{\pi}(s)$ , the value function does not change anymore because the value function already satisfies a Bellman expectation equation $v(s) = \mathsf{B}_{\pi} v(s)$ . In other words $v_{\pi}(s) = \mathsf{B}^k_{\pi} v_{\pi}(s)$ , and the $v_{\pi}(s)$ is called the fixed point of $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ . The figure below is the image of how any initial value functions converge to the fixed point unique to a certain policy $\pi$ . Also Bellman optimality operators $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ also have their fixed points because any initial value functions converge to $v_{\ast}(s)$ by repeatedly applying $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ .

I am actually just saying the same facts as in the topic (1) in another way. But I would like you to keep it in mind that the fixed point of $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ is more of a “local” fixed point. On the other hand the fixed point of $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ is more like “global.” Ultimately the global one is ultimately important, and the fixed point $v_{\ast}$ can be directly reached only with the Bellman optimality operator $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ . But you can also start with finding local fixed points, and it is known that the local fixed points also converge to the global one. In fact, the former case of corresponds to policy iteration, and the latter case to value iteration. At any rate, the goal for now is to find the optimal value function $v_{\ast}$ . Once the value function is optimal, the optimal policy can be automatically obtained, and I am going to explain why in the next two topics.

(3) Existence of the optimal policy

In the first place, does the optimal policy really exist? The answer is yes, and moreover it is a stationary and deterministic policy $\pi ^{\text{d}} \in \Pi^{\text{SD}}$ . And also, you can judge whether a policy is optimal by a Bellman expectation equation below.

$v_{\ast}(s) = (\mathsf{B}_{\pi^{\ast} } v_{\ast})(s), \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$

In other words, the optimal value function $v_{\ast}(s)$ has to be already obtained to judge if a policy is optimal. And the resulting optimal policy is calculated as follows.

$\pi^{\text{d}}_{\ast}(s) = \argmax_{a\in \matchal{A}} \sum_{s'}{p(s' | s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v_{\ast}(s') \biggr]}, \quad \forall s \in \mathcal{S}$

Let’s take an example of the state transition diagram in the last section. I added some transitions from nodes to themselves and corresponding scores. And all values of the states are initialized as $v_{init.}$ . After some calculations, $v_{init.}$ is optimized to $v_{\ast}$ . And finally the optimal policy can be obtained from the equation I have just mentioned. And the conclusion is “Go to the lab wherever you are to maximize score.”
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{./fig/optimal_policy_existence.png}
\end{figure}

The calculation above is finding an action $a$ which maximizes $b(s, a)\doteq\sum_{s'}{p(s' | s, a) \biggl[r + \gamma v_{\ast}(s') \biggr]} = r + \gamma \sum_{s'}{p(s' | s, a) v_{\ast}(s') }$ . Let me call the part $b(s, a)$ ” a value of a branch,” and finding the optimal deterministic policy is equal to choosing the maximum branch for all $s$ . A branch corresponds to a pair of a state $s, a$ and all the all the states $s'$ .

*We can comprehend applications of Bellman expectation operators as probabilistically reweighting branches with policies $\pi(a|s)$ .

*The states $s$ and $s'$ are basically the same. They are just different in uses of indexes for referring them. That might be a confusing point of understanding Bellman equations.

Let’s see how values actually converge to the optimal values and how branches $b(s, a)$ . I implemented value iteration of the Starbucks-lab-home transition diagram and visuzlied them with Graphviz. I initialized all the states as $0$ , and after some iterations they converged to the optimal values. The numbers in each node are values of the sates. And the numbers next to each edge are corresponding values of branches $b(a, b)$ . After you get the optimal value, if you choose the direction with the maximum branch at each state, you get the optimal deterministic policy. And that means “Just go to the lab, not Starbucks.”

*Discussing and visualizing “branches” of Bellman equations are not normal in other study materials. But I just thought it would be better to see how they change.

(4) Policy improvement

Policy improvement means a very simple fact: in policy iteration algorithm, with a better policy, you get a better value function. That is all. In policy iteration, a policy is regarded as optimal as long as it does not updated anymore. But as far as I could see so far, there is one confusing fact. Even after a policy converges, value functions still can be updated. But from the definition, an optimal value function is determined with the optimal value function. Such facts can be seen in some of DP implementation, including grid map implementation I introduced in the last article.

Thus I am not sure if it is legitimate to say whether the policy is optimal even before getting the optimal value function. At any rate, this is my “elaborate study note,” so I conversely ask for some help to more professional someones if they come across with my series. Please forgive me for shifting to the next article, without making things clear.

4, Viewing DP algorithms in a more simple and abstract way

We have covered the four important topics for a better understanding of DP algorithms. Making use of these ideas, pseudocode of DP algorithms which I introduced in the last article can be rewritten in a more simple and abstract way. Rather than following pseudocode of DP algorithms, I would like you to see them this way: policy iteration is a repetation of finding the fixed point of a Bellman operator $\mathsf{B}_{\pi}$ , which is a local fixed point, and updating the policy. Even if the policy converge, values have not necessarily converged to the optimal values.

When it comes to value iteration: value iteration is finding the fixed point of $\mathsf{B}_{\ast}$ , which is global, and getting the deterministic and optimal policy.

I have written about DP in as many as two articles. But I would say that was inevitable for laying more or less solid foundation of learning RL. The last article was too superficial and ordinary, but on the other hand this one is too abstract to introduce at first. Now that I have explained essential theoretical parts of DP, I can finally move to topics unique to RL. We have been thinking the case of plannings where the models of the environemnt is known, but they are what agents have to estimate with “trial and errors.” The term “trial and errors” might have been too abstract to you when you read about RL so far. But after reading my articles, you can instead say that is a matter of how to approximate Bellman operators with batch or online data taken by agents, rather than ambiguously saying “trial and erros.” In the next article, I am going to talk about “temporal differences,” which makes RL different from other fields and can be used as data samples to approximate Bellman operators.

1, Finally to reinforcement learning

2, Untying DP graphs: planning or learning

3, Some spectrums in RL algorithms

(1) Value-policy or actor-critic spectrum

(2) Exploration-exploitation or on-off policy spectrum

(3) TD-MonteCarlo spectrum

(4) Model free-based spectrum

(5) Model expressivity spectrum

(6) Adjusting sliders of spectrum

1. Supervised Learning

2. Unsupervised Learning

3. Semi-supervised Learning

Supervised vs. Unsupervised vs. Semi-supervised

Introduction

2 Proposed Method

2.1 Problem Definition

3. Deep Q-Network

4.0 Main Contribution of the Research

4.1 Action and Reward

4.2 Proposed Target Policy

4.3 Q-Network Structure

5 Experiment and Hyperparameter Tuning

5.1 Experiment Setting

5.2 Hyperparameter Optimization

5.3 Performance Evaluation

6 Conclusion

References

Why do we use Regression Analysis?

What is Linear Regression?

Application of Linear Regression:

Real-world examples of linear regression models

Assumptions of Linear Regression:

Autoencoders

Variational autoencoders

Network Architecture

Training

Summary

Further readings

References

Training

Network Architectures

Summary

References

1, Some excuses for writing another article on the same topic

2, RL and plannings as tree structures

3, Types of policies

3, Key components of DP

(1) Bellman operator

(2) Policy evaluation

(3) Existence of the optimal policy

(4) Policy improvement

4, Viewing DP algorithms in a more simple and abstract way

Interesting links

Pages

Categories

Archive