*Let’s make an A3C*.

1. Theory

2. Implementation

### Introduction

In the previous article we built necessary knowledge about Policy Gradient Methods and A3C algorithm. This time we implement a simple agent with our familiar tools – Python, Keras and OpenAI Gym. However, more low level implementation is needed and that’s where TensorFlow comes to play.

The environment is the same as in DQN implementation – *CartPole*. Final code fits inside 300 lines and is easily converted to any other problem. A3C algorithm is very effective and learning takes only 30 seconds on a regular notebook.

The code presented here however isn’t the original vanilla A3C algorithm, but it has multiple advances incorporated into it. Notably, it leverages the use of GPU with a custom implementation inspired by recent NVIDIA work^{1} and n-step return.

The complete code is available at GitHub.

### N-step return

Before we delve into the implementation itself, let’s explain one more concept.

Usually we used something called 1-step return when we computed *Q(s, a)*, *V(s)* or *A(s, a)* functions. That means that we looked only one step ahead. For example, when setting a target of a value function:

In this case we used an immediate return from sample and an estimated value of the function in the next step to give us an approximation. However, we can use more steps to give us another approximation:

or in general a n-step return:

The n-step return has an advantage that changes in the approximated function get propagated much more quickly. Let’s say that the agent experienced a transition with unexpected reward. In 1-step return scenario, the value function would only change slowly one step backwards with each iteration. In n-step return however, the change is propagated *n* steps backwards each iteration, thus much quicker.

N-step return has its drawbacks. It’s higher variance because the value depends on a chain of actions which can lead into many different states. This might endanger the convergence.

We can also compute it only when enough samples are available, thus it is delayed. As we know, A3C algorithm needs its samples to be made by current policy and by the time we can compute n-step return the policy might have slightly changed. So this delay introduces some deviation and also threatens the convergence.

We need to keep these properties in mind when introducing n-step return. In practice, however, reasonable values of *n* help.

### Implementation

Let’s first see the big picture. The A3C algorithm contains several key concepts that all make it work. Multiple separate environments are run in parallel, each of which contains an agent. The agents however share one neural network. Samples produced by agents are gathered in a queue, from where they are asynchronously used by a separate optimizer thread to improve the policy. The diagram below shows how these components work together:

We will implement four classes – `Environment`

, `Agent`

, `Brain`

and `Optimizer`

. Two of these are thread classes – `Environment`

and `Optimizer`

.

Environment :Thread run() # runs episodes in loop Agent act(s) # decides what action to take in state s train(sample) # processes sample and add it to the train queue Brain predict(s) # outputs pi(s) and V(s) train_push(sample) # adds sample to the training queue optimize() # does the gradient descent step Optimizer :Thread run() # calls brain.optimize() in loop

##### Environment

The `Environment`

class is an instance of OpenAI Gym environment and contains an instance of `Agent`

. It is also a thread that continuously runs one episode after another.

def run(self): while not self.stop_signal: self.runEpisode()

The `runEpisode()`

method is simple:

def runEpisode(self): s = self.env.reset() while True: time.sleep(THREAD_DELAY) # yield a = self.agent.act(s) s_, r, done, info = self.env.step(a) if done: # terminal state s_ = None self.agent.train(s, a, r, s_) s = s_ if done or self.stop_signal: break

The `THREAD_DELAY`

parameter controls a delay between steps and enables to have more parallel environments than there are CPUs. High number of agents is crucial for convergence of the algorithm as the gradient approximation quality depends on high diversity of samples.

##### Agent

In `Agent`

class, the `act()`

method returns an action to take. To support exploration, it implements ε-greedy policy with linearly decreasing rate. The action is selected according to the policy distribution returned by the neural network.

def act(self, s): if random.random() < epsilon: return random.randint(0, NUM_ACTIONS-1) else: p = brain.predict_p(s) return np.random.choice(NUM_ACTIONS, p=p)

The `train()`

method receives samples, processes them and pushes them into the training queue. First, it turns actions into one hot encoded array needed later. Then it stores the current transition in an internal memory, which is used to compute the n-step return.

def train(self, s, a, r, s_): a_cats = np.zeros(NUM_ACTIONS) a_cats[a] = 1 self.memory.append( (s, a_cats, r, s_) )

Last *n* samples are stored in this buffer and when there are enough of them, n-step discounted reward `R`

is computed. Proper variables are retrieved and a tuple is inserted into the brain’s training queue.

if len(self.memory) >= N_STEP_RETURN: s, a, r, s_ = get_sample(self.memory, N_STEP_RETURN) brain.train_push(s, a, r, s_) self.memory.pop(0)

An internal `get_sample()`

function is responsible to compute n-step discounted reward and return a proper tuple:

def get_sample(memory, n): r = 0. for i in range(n): r += memory[i][2] * (GAMMA ** i) s, a, _, _ = memory[0] _, _, _, s_ = memory[n-1] return s, a, r, s_

The last thing we have to deal with is the case when our agent encounters a terminal state. As there will be no more states after, we have to deplete the whole buffer. In loop, we shorten the buffer in each iteration and compute the n-step return, where *n* is equal to the current length of the buffer.

if s_ is None: # terminal state while len(self.memory) > 0: n = len(self.memory) s, a, r, s_ = get_sample(self.memory, n) brain.train_push(s, a, r, s_) self.memory.pop(0)

###### Effective implementation

You might have noticed that we are looping over the whole memory within each step to compute the discounted reward. While this implementation is good for demonstration and understanding, it is clearly inefficient. Let’s look at the discounted reward formula:

We can see a relationship:

So we can remember the value of R and update it accordingly with each time step. This implementation is used in the actual accompanying code.

##### Brain

The `Brain`

class encapsulates the neural network, TensorFlow graph definition and related computation. Let’s look at its parts in order.

###### Training queue

One of the responsibilities of the `Brain`

class is to hold a training queue. This queue consists of 5 arrays – starting state `s`

, one-hot encoded taken action `a`

, discounted n-step return `r`

, landing state after *n* steps `s_`

and a terminal mask with values `1.`

or `0.`

, indicating whether the `s_`

is `None`

or not. Terminal mask will be useful later to parallelize the computation.

def train_push(self, s, a, r, s_): with self.lock_queue: self.train_queue[0].append(s) self.train_queue[1].append(a) self.train_queue[2].append(r) if s_ is None: self.train_queue[3].append(NONE_STATE) self.train_queue[4].append(0.) else: self.train_queue[3].append(s_) self.train_queue[4].append(1.)

Also a dummy `NONE_STATE`

is used in case the `s_`

is `None`

. This dummy state is valid, so it can be processed by the neural network, but we don’t care about the result. It’s only there to parallelize the computation.

The samples from agents are gathered in the training queue through `train_push()`

method in a synchronized manner.

###### Neural network

The core of our new agent is a neural network that decides what to do in a given situation. There are two sets of outputs – the policy itself and the value function.

It is defined very easily with Keras:

l_input = Input( batch_shape=(None, NUM_STATE) ) l_dense = Dense(16, activation='relu')(l_input) out_actions = Dense(NUM_ACTIONS, activation='softmax')(l_dense) out_value = Dense(1, activation='linear')(l_dense) model = Model(inputs=[l_input], outputs=[out_actions, out_value])

The policy output goes through softmax activation to make it correct probability distribution. The ouput for value function is linear, as we need all values to be possible.

###### Loss function

Now we have to define a loss function, which has three parts:

is the loss of the policy, is the value error and is a regularization term. These parts are multiplied by constants and , which determine what part we stress more. Let’s describe these in order.

###### Policy Loss

We defined an objective function as total reward an agent can achieve under policy averaged over all starting states:

We also know that a gradient of this function is determined by *Policy Gradient Theorem* as:

We are trying to maximize the *J* function, so we can just say that:

However, TensorFlow can’t analytically compute gradient of this function, so we have to help it with our knowledge. We can rewrite the definition of function *J* as follows, while treating the part as a constant:

This expression can be automatically differentiated by TensorFlow resulting in the same formula as given by the Policy Gradient Theorem.

For completeness, we have to swap the expectation for average over all samples in a batch. We are using samples generated by policy π and therefore can make this switch. The final loss function is then:

###### Value loss

Learning the value function *V(s)* is analogous to Q-learning case, where we tried to learn action-value function *Q(s, a)*. In n-step return scenario, we know that the true function *V(s)* should meet the Bellman equation:

The approximated *V(s)* should converge according to this formula and we can measure the error as:

Then we can define the as a mean squared error of all given samples as:

###### Regularization with policy entropy

Adding entropy to the loss function was found to improve exploration by limiting the premature convergence to suboptimal policy^{2}. Entropy for policy is defined as:

Where is a probability for *k*-th action in state *s*. It’s useful to know that entropy for fully deterministic policy (e.g. `[1, 0, 0, 0]`

for four actions) is 0 and it is maximized for totally uniform policy (e.g. `[0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25]`

).

Knowing this we see that by trying to maximize the entropy, we are keeping the policy away from the deterministic one. This fact stimulate exploration.

Averaging over all samples in a batch, is then set to:

###### TensorFlow graph

So, how do we actually implement all of the above? We need to define a TensorFlow graph of the loss function that allows it’s analytical computation.

First we need placeholders, that will be filled with relevant data when a *minimize* operation is run. They represent a 2D array and will hold a whole batch. The first dimension represent different samples in a batch and is unlimited. The second dimension is different for each placeholder, representing a dimension of state, one-hot encoded action and reward.

# starting states s_t = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=(None, NUM_STATE)) # one hot encoded actions a_t = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=(None, NUM_ACTIONS)) # n-step discounted total reward r_t = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, shape=(None, 1))

Then we propagate the states through our network to get policy and value outputs. Note that we are actually not running any operation at this time, but rather defining a graph that will be run during the *minimize* operation.

p, v = model(s_t)

Now let’s recall how does the part of our loss function look like:

The expression means a probability of taking action *a* in state *s*, or in other words, the *a*-th index of *π(s)*. Unfortunately, we can’t use indexes when defining TensorFlow graph, but we can use other arithmetic operations. If we take the whole policy, multiply it with one-hot encoded action and sum these together, we get exactly what we need.

logp = tf.log(tf.reduce_sum(p*a_t, axis=1, keep_dims=True) + 1e-10)

We add a small constant to prevent a `NaN`

error that could occur if we selected an action while it’s probability was zero. That could happen, because we are using ε-greedy policy.

We also need to be careful to do desired operations along correct dimensions, yielding desired outputs. TensorFlow is very silent about formal errors and an incorrect reduce operation can happen very easily. Always debug your code when you play with graph implementation and make sure to print out tensor dimensions for each operation.

The other half of the equation is the advantage function. We use a fact that the `r_t`

placeholder holds a value of:

Recall that the n-step advantage function is defined as

We can approximate the *Q(s, a)* function with samples we observed during an episode, resulting in:

Defining the advantage function is therefore as simple as:

advantage = r_t - v

And finally, we can define the itself. We need to take care to treat the advantage function as constant, by using `tf.stop_gradient()`

operator. Expressions for , and all include averaging over whole batch. But it can be skipped now and performed as a last step, when we add these together.

loss_policy = - logp * tf.stop_gradient(advantage)

Now we define . Interestingly, the error in this case is the same as the advantage function:

How could that be? It’s because we made the approximation when computing *A(s, a)*. We didn’t compute the expectation over all possible chains, but rather used one sample from a run. then become:

loss_value = C_V * tf.square(advantage)

Finally, we have to define the entropy. The formula for is:

Again, we need to take care of the possible `NaN`

error of the `log()`

function, by adding a small constant.

entropy = C_E * tf.reduce_sum(p * tf.log(p + 1e-10), axis=1, keep_dims=True)

Now we add all parts together. In all three formulas above, we skipped the averaging part, but we can compute it now in a single step.

loss_total = tf.reduce_mean(loss_policy + loss_value + entropy)

As a last step, we choose an algorithm that will be used for optimization and define the *minimize* operation. RMSProp was found to work well and it allows for manual control of learning rate. We have only an approximated gradient in our setting, so we have to proceed in a slow and controlled manner.

optimizer = tf.train.RMSPropOptimizer(LEARNING_RATE, decay=.99) minimize = optimizer.minimize(loss_total)

##### Optimizer

Last part of the puzzle is `Optimizer`

. The class itself is very simple, it just a thread that repeatedly calls `brain.optimize()`

.

def run(self): while not self.stop_signal: brain.optimize()

So, let’s look at this `brain.optimize()`

function. It preprocesses data and run the *minimize* operation we defined earlier. TensorFlow then computes the gradient and changes neural network’s weights.

First, we have to make sure that we have enough samples in the training queue. This is required to get a good quality approximation of the gradient and it also allows for efficient batch computation. If there aren’t enough samples, we simply yield to other threads to do their work.

def optimize(self): if len(self.train_queue[0]) < MIN_BATCH: time.sleep(0) # yield return

Then we extract all the samples from the queue in a synchronized manner:

with self.lock_queue: s, a, r, s_, s_mask = self.train_queue self.train_queue = [ [], [], [], [], [] ]

And process them into solid blocks of numpy arrays:

s = np.vstack(s) a = np.vstack(a) r = np.vstack(r) s_ = np.vstack(s_) s_mask = np.vstack(s_mask)

The reward received from the training queue is only immediate, excluding the part, so we have to add it.

Fortunately, this can be efficiently done on GPU for all states in a batch in parallel.

v = self.predict_v(s_) r = r + GAMMA_N * v * s_mask

First we compute the for all landing states. Then we add it to the `r`

matrix, again by using vectorized operation.

But, if the landing state is terminal, we shouldn’t add the term. However, we cleverly prepared the `s_mask`

array that is `0`

in case of terminal state and `1`

otherwise. This simple trick allows us to still use vectorized operation. Although run on CPU, modern instructions allow for matrix multiplication that is much quicker than a loop implementation. There is only a small overhead by computing the values for `NONE_STATE`

. However, these states are sparse and the cost is small compared to selective computation.

Finally, we extract the placeholders, run the *minimize* operation and TensorFlow will do the rest.

s_t, a_t, r_t, minimize = self.graph self.session.run(minimize, feed_dict={s_t: s, a_t: a, r_t: r_})

So, the optimizer runs the *minimize* operation tirelessly in a loop. However, one optimizer is often not enough. But nothing stops us from running multiple optimizers at the same time. And indeed, in practice two optimizers are much more efficient than one. While one is occupied by running a GPU operation, the other can preprocess the data. One optimizer often struggles to keep pace with incoming data. If it can’t consume incoming samples quickly, the queue keeps growing and it leads to problems.

##### Main

The main program starts with determining the shape of states and actions in a given environment. This allows for fast switching of environments simply by changing a single constant (at least for simple environments).

env_test = Environment(render=True, eps_start=0., eps_end=0.) NUM_STATE = env_test.env.observation_space.shape[0] NUM_ACTIONS = env_test.env.action_space.n

Then it creates instances of `Brain`

, `Environment`

and `Optimizer`

.

brain = Brain() envs = [Environment() for i in range(THREADS)] opts = [Optimizer() for i in range(OPTIMIZERS)]

Finally, it just starts the threads, wait given number of seconds, stops them and displays a trained agent to the user.

for o in opts: o.start() for e in envs: e.start() time.sleep(RUN_TIME) for e in envs: e.stop() for e in envs: e.join() for o in opts: o.stop() for o in opts: o.join() env_test.run()

### Remarks

Positive results were experienced when using different exploration constants for different agents^{2}. In this implementation, however, a single value for all agents is used for simplicity.

The results are highly variable. In case of *CartPole* environment, almost all runs result in a capable agent. However, in general the algorithm is very sensitive to starting conditions and in more complex environments it might result in very variable performance. You should average several runs if you want to measure progress.

This is a table of all constants used in the algorithm:

Parameter | Value | Explanation |
---|---|---|

agent threads | 8 | |

optimizer threads | 2 | |

thread delay | 0.001 s | |

γ | 0.99 | |

ε_{start} |
0.40 | |

ε_{stop} |
0.15 | |

ε_{steps} |
75 000 | ε will come down to ε_{stop} after ε_{steps} |

n-step | 8 | |

minimal batch size | 32 | |

RMSprop learning rate | 0.005 | |

c_{v} |
0.5 | L_{V} constant |

c_{reg} |
0.01 | L_{reg} constant |

training time | 30s |

### Results

I trained the agent on my MacBook with integrated NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048MB GPU. The CPU has four physical cores, but I used 8 agents. The number of agents directly affects the performance, because it influences the quality of the gradient. You should tweak the hyperparameters to work best on your setup.

Training takes 30 seconds during which the algorithm goes through roughly 1000 episodes and 65 000 steps, that corresponds to about 2 200 steps per second. Results averaged over 10 runs are shown below:

You can see a demonstration how a trained agent behaves below:

You can download the code from GitHub. Feel free to use it as a base for your experiments or developing more capable agents. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to ask me in comments.

I’ve tried with the hyper parameters as-is, and tweaking them; but, the system doesn’t ever seem to do better than a total reward of about 45.

Same here. Does it have to do with the fact that I’m using CPU?

Hello again Jaromír! I have another question if you don’t mind. Checking other implementations of A3C (e.g. OpenAI Universe Starter Agent: https://github.com/openai/universe-starter-agent or ), I’ve noted that the only one that uses tf.stop_gradient() for the advantages in the policy loss it’s yours. I agree with your explanation on why it’s neccesary to use it, do you know why they don’t use it? I made my own implementation for the continuous action space and tested it with and without tf.stop_gradient() and in both cases the policy converges

Hi, without the tf.stop_gradient(), you would propagate the gradient into the value function, which is incorrect. It might be that the leak is small and don’t influence the value function much, hence it works for you.

I just checked OpenAI Universe Starter Agent (see https://github.com/openai/universe-starter-agent/blob/master/a3c.py#L194):

self.ac = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [None, env.action_space.n], name=”ac”)

self.adv = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [None], name=”adv”)

# . . .

# the “policy gradients” loss: its derivative is precisely the policy gradient

# notice that self.ac is a placeholder that is provided externally.

# adv will contain the advantages, as calculated in process_rollout

pi_loss = – tf.reduce_sum(tf.reduce_sum(log_prob_tf * self.ac, [1]) * self.adv)

The self.adv is a placeholder, therefore a constant. The gradient can’t leak into a constant, therefore you don’t have to explicitly block it through tf.stop_gradient().

On the other hand, this implementation uses:

p, v = model(s_t)

# . . .

advantage = r_t – v

loss_policy = – logp * tf.stop_gradient(advantage)

The v is a function of the network parameters and therefore the gradient would propagate.

Hi, may I ask you a question？Are we going to maximize policy entropy or minimize it? Since if we maximize it, more exploration will be simulated.

Yes, the entropy is maximized, exactly for that reason.

I noticed that the system seems to be unstable. I can get a score of 500 for several epochs, and then suddenly after optimizing it will massively regress. Is this jus a case of overfitting, and we need to add the typical train and validation?

Hello, any large update can destroy the progress so far. I refer you to: Schulman et al., Trust Region Policy Optimization, 2015, https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05477, where they deal with the issue.

Hi. Great post! Love it!!!

I noticed that you compute the discounted reward quite differently than from the paper. The paper uses bootstrapping $V(s_t, \theta)$ as a seed for non-terminal states, and then work backwards from there, where as your implementation computes the discounted rewards in a forward manner, without bootstrapping.

Can you help me understand the differences, and why you chose your way?

Hi Toke, could you rephrase your question? I don’t understand what you’re asking.

First, your article is excellent, Thank you!

Second, (sorry for the support question but) I’m curious if there is anything special I need to do to Load/Save the model due to being half Keras and half TF? I’ve tried the standard

brain.model.save(…) and keras.models.load_model(…) But it has clearly lost its learning even though the api calls work fine.

Answered my own question.. you have to add an extra load_weights() after the session.run

self.model = load_model(FILENAME)

self.model._make_predict_function()

self.session.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())

self.model.load_weights(FILENAME)

Very nice and easy to understand tutorial!

I have a question on the implementation. Compared to the A3C paper and probably also to the GA3C paper (I did not read that carefully enough yet) you have an additional random exploration controlled by the parameter epsilon. Have you made the experience that the entropy term in the loss function itself is not sufficient for exploration and the addition of a random action is needed?

Hi, that is indeed an interesting question. And the current answer is simple – I did not. But I’m interested, if you find any additional conclusions.

Awesome tutorial Jaromír! Thank you very much, it is by far the clearest tutorial explaining A3C theory. I have however one question; this is the implementation of the feedforward model of the algorithm, with your trick of the global queue it wouldn’t be possible to implement the model with the recurrent layer, right? Since the queue is receiving samples asynchronously from all the agents, the temporal dependencies would be lost. I hope you can help me with this doubt, thanks again!

P.S sorry if there’s any mistake with my english, I’m not a native speaker

Yes, RNN would need a different model of storing samples which preserves the temporal dependencies.

Have you tried this code with Atari games? It seems it never converge.

Hi, Atari games is much more complex environment and requires additional tuning of hyper-parameters and additional pre-processing. There was a similar question about MountainCar environment, for which the hyperparameters were tuned by a user on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/67fqv8/da3c_performs_badly_in_mountain_car/). You can start there.

any more article on a3c or other Deep Reinforcement learning?

Hi, I wonder what is the reason Tensorflow can’t automatically compute A(s,a) if you don’t treat it as a constant. I mean there is no cycle in a graph and gradient w.r.t v(s) is known.

Although I suspect in general it should be regarded as constant, as although in practice we share some part of the parameters for actor and critic, we treat them as separate things in formulas. That’s what I think so far..

You have to treat the A(s, a) in the formula for gradient of J as constant, because that’s what the formula says. Look again at the Policy Gradient formula and pay attention what it says and what is gradient of what. Reread the passage.

Tensorflow has no problem if you don’t stop the gradient flow and will happily compute it. It would be uncorrect, though.

I found something new about MountainCar environment. I have gym rendered the training process of A3C (training using only 1 thread), and found that it actually reaches the goal quite quickly. Before reaching the goal for the first time, it behaves reasonably, but after reaching the goal for several times, for unknown reasons it suddenly converge to a very bad policy that always wants to go left/right…

Would you please try if things are the same in your side? If so, what is the reason of it? I have opened a thread in https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/67fqv8/da3c_performs_badly_in_mountain_car/.

Thank you!

Thank you for your post on A3C code!

I tried out your code on CartPole and MountainCar, in CartPole it works really well, taking less than 3 minutes to reach a cumulative reward of 475 and solved v1 environment.

However, when comes to MountainCar it performs badly. The policy network seems to converge so that the car always wants to go left/right in all situations, while DQN worked fairly well after training for about 10 minutes. I have not found a reason why this code do not work in CartPole yet. Have you tried out the MountainCar problem? I would appreciate if you can give some hints on solving that environment.

Yes, I noticed it struggles in MountainCar environment. The problem with A3C is that it can only improve a current policy with little steps. In mountain car environment, only non-negative reward is awarded when reaching the goal. Since a random policy rarely reaches this goal, the algorithm does not know what to improve. I’d guess that going from epsilon 1.0 slowly down might help. Once it finds a policy that at least performs somehow, the algorithm can improve it.

Compare that to DQN – when the goal is reached:

a) the memory is saved and gets replayed many times

b) the change in Q function gets propagated through states backwards (see the update formula)

That’s why DQN performs better here.

I can’t reply Jaromiru’s reply so I’ll have to write it here…

Jaromiru said that DQN indeed performs better here, but in DQN it also starts from pure random actions, so it is also hard for it to observe a success episode. How can it make progress? I rendered the training process, and can see concrete improvement of the car.

The problem with A3C seems to be that it always wants to go right/left in the end. I don’t know how it comes to this conclusion. I tried decreasing eps from 1.0 to 0.01 slowly but that does not work. Actually, at the very beginning A3C behaves randomly as well, so I don’t think this have so much to do with the setting of epsilon…

Thank you very much for your post, it is very helpful for me.

I have one question for you. If my understanding is right, in your implementation, your local workers interacts with their own environments, but push the (s, a, r, s’) to a global shared queue. The global optimizer computes the gradients based on the samples in the global shared queue, and updates the global network. Is is like synchronous update? In the Deepmind’s paper of “Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning”, it writes “Perform asynchronous update of \theta (global shared) using \delta \theta”. Actually I don’t quite understand what it means.

The code is not written identically to the paper. The key idea of A3C is to explore and train the model concurrently in order to emphasize exploration and break associations between experiences. Jaromiru’s code puts experiences from different threads into the same global queue, also achieving the two goals. This is a more convenient implementation of A3C on a single machine, I guess.

You can either update the shared network in each agent thread, but collecting all the experiences in one queue has a substantial advantage – you can process them in batch, much more efficiently. Since it’s in a separate thread, I’d still say it’s asynchronous – in relation to agents.

In fact, this design is more like GA3C (https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1VGvBcxl) which is more GPU friendly and easier to implement. The potential problem of this is “policy lag” which is also discussed in this paper.

Amazing! Thank you so much for sharing such an incredibly detailed and invaluable tutorial. I wish more people in the academic world were so willing to help the rest of us, by sharing knowledge the way you are doing. After all, what is the purpose of having an open AI gym if we do not have intructors to guide us through the exercises? How are we supposed to learn? Congratulations, thank you, and keep up the great work.

Thank you, I feel joy when someone benefits from my work.