Is there Value in Reinforcement Learning?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04822v1
• Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 21:50:27 GMT
• Title: Is there Value in Reinforcement Learning?
• Authors: Lior Fox, Yonatan Loewenstein,
• Abstract summary: Action-values play a central role in popular Reinforcement Learing (RL) models of behavior.<n>Critics had suggested that policy-gradient (PG) models should be favored over value-based (VB) ones.
• Score: 1.534667887016089
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Action-values play a central role in popular Reinforcement Learing (RL) models of behavior. Yet, the idea that action-values are explicitly represented has been extensively debated. Critics had therefore repeatedly suggested that policy-gradient (PG) models should be favored over value-based (VB) ones, as a potential solution for this dilemma. Here we argue that this solution is unsatisfying. This is because PG methods are not, in fact, "Value-free" -- while they do not rely on an explicit representation of Value for acting (stimulus-response mapping), they do require it for learning. Hence, switching to PG models is, per se, insufficient for eliminating Value from models of behavior. More broadly, the requirement for a representation of Value stems from the underlying assumptions regarding the optimization objective posed by the standard RL framework, not from the particular algorithm chosen to solve it. Previous studies mostly took these standard RL assumptions for granted, as part of their conceptualization or problem modeling, while debating the different methods used to optimize it (i.e., PG or VB). We propose that, instead, the focus of the debate should shift to critically evaluating the underlying modeling assumptions. Such evaluation is particularly important from an experimental perspective. Indeed, the very notion of Value must be reconsidered when standard assumptions (e.g., risk neutrality, full-observability, Markovian environment, exponential discounting) are relaxed, as is likely in natural settings. Finally, we use the Value debate as a case study to argue in favor of a more nuanced, algorithmic rather than statistical, view of what constitutes "a model" in cognitive sciences. Our analysis suggests that besides "parametric" statistical complexity, additional aspects such as computational complexity must also be taken into account when evaluating model complexity.

Related papers

• EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs [9.412828452977553]
  Existing approaches reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost.<n>This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment.<n>We proposeEpiCaR as a training objective that jointly optimize reasoning performance and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T06:21:13Z)
• Large Language Models Reasoning Abilities Under Non-Ideal Conditions After RL-Fine-Tuning [33.27410930782468]
  We introduce a new research direction guided by brain-science findings that human reasoning remains reliable under imperfect inputs.<n>We fine-tune three large language models (LLMs) and a state-of-the-art large vision-language model (LVLM) usingReinforcement learning (RL) with a representative policy-gradient algorithm.<n>Our results reveal that while RL fine-tuning improves baseline reasoning under idealized settings, performance declines significantly across all three non-ideal scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T19:51:29Z)
• Lean and Mean: Decoupled Value Policy Optimization with Global Value Guidance [52.65461207786633]
  Policy-based Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback is essential for aligning large language models with human preferences.<n>It requires joint training of an actor and critic with a pretrained, fixed reward model for guidance.<n>We propose textbfDecoupled Value Policy Optimization (DVPO), a lean framework that replaces traditional reward modeling with a pretrained emphglobal value model (GVM)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T08:11:33Z)
• Exploring the Limit of Outcome Reward for Learning Mathematical Reasoning [65.2421542320293]
  Reasoning abilities are crucial components of general intelligence.<n>Recent advances by proprietary companies, such as o-series models of OpenAI, have made remarkable progress on reasoning tasks.<n>This paper proposes a new RL framework, termed OREAL, to pursue the performance limit that can be achieved through textbfOutcome textbfREwtextbfArd-based reinforcement textbfLearning for mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T18:57:29Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Namely, we propose novel metrics with high probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model.<n>Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• Value-Distributional Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [59.758009422067]
  Quantifying uncertainty about a policy's long-term performance is important to solve sequential decision-making tasks. We study the problem from a model-based Bayesian reinforcement learning perspective. We propose Epistemic Quantile-Regression (EQR), a model-based algorithm that learns a value distribution function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-12T14:59:19Z)
• Neural Causal Models for Counterfactual Identification and Estimation [62.30444687707919]
  We study the evaluation of counterfactual statements through neural models. First, we show that neural causal models (NCMs) are expressive enough. Second, we develop an algorithm for simultaneously identifying and estimating counterfactual distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-30T18:29:09Z)
• Deciding What to Model: Value-Equivalent Sampling for Reinforcement Learning [21.931580762349096]
  We introduce an algorithm that computes an approximately-value-equivalent, lossy compression of the environment which an agent may feasibly target in lieu of the true model. We prove an information-theoretic, Bayesian regret bound for our algorithm that holds for any finite-horizon, episodic sequential decision-making problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T23:36:38Z)
• Value Gradient weighted Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [28.366157882991565]
  Model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) is a sample efficient technique to obtain control policies. VaGraM is a novel method for value-aware model learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-04T13:28:31Z)
• Mismatched No More: Joint Model-Policy Optimization for Model-Based RL [172.37829823752364]
  We propose a single objective for jointly training the model and the policy, such that updates to either component increases a lower bound on expected return. Our objective is a global lower bound on expected return, and this bound becomes tight under certain assumptions. The resulting algorithm (MnM) is conceptually similar to a GAN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T13:43:27Z)
• The Value Equivalence Principle for Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [29.368870568214007]
  We argue that the limited representational resources of model-based RL agents are better used to build models that are directly useful for value-based planning. We show that, as we augment the set of policies and functions considered, the class of value equivalent models shrinks. We argue that the principle of value equivalence underlies a number of recent empirical successes in RL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-06T18:25:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.