Controlling Overestimation Bias with Truncated Mixture of Continuous Distributional Quantile Critics
Abstract: The overestimation bias is one of the major impediments to accurate off-policy learning. This paper investigates a novel way to alleviate the overestimation bias in a continuous control setting. Our method---Truncated Quantile Critics, TQC,---blends three ideas: distributional representation of a critic, truncation of critics prediction, and ensembling of multiple critics. Distributional representation and truncation allow for arbitrary granular overestimation control, while ensembling provides additional score improvements. TQC outperforms the current state of the art on all environments from the continuous control benchmark suite, demonstrating 25% improvement on the most challenging Humanoid environment.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions
Below is a single, concrete list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper, framed to guide future research directions:
- Lack of theoretical guarantees: no formal analysis of TQC’s bias, variance, and convergence properties (e.g., conditions under which truncation reduces overestimation, bounds on induced underestimation, convergence to a fixed point of the truncated Bellman operator).
- Unclear state-dependent behavior: the truncation ratio (d/M) and ensemble size (N) are fixed or tuned per environment; there is no adaptive, state/action-dependent scheme that responds to local aleatoric uncertainty or non-stationarity.
- Parameter selection remains heuristic: how to choose d, M, and N online without per-environment tuning; whether a principled schedule or learned controller can optimize truncation intensity during training.
- Objective mismatch not analyzed: the actor optimizes nontruncated Q values while the critic learns truncated TD targets; the impact of this inconsistency on policy improvement, stability, and optimality is not studied.
- Truncation order lacks theory: the paper compares “truncate-the-mixture” vs “mixture-of-truncated” primarily empirically in two environments; no general criterion or analysis of when each order is preferable, nor a hybrid approach with guarantees.
- Ensemble diversity left unaddressed: critics share data and training pipeline; the effect of correlation among critics on TQC performance is not quantified; bootstrapping, different data folds, or decorrelation mechanisms are not explored.
- Quantile calibration and crossing: continuous actor-critic quantile networks can suffer from miscalibration or quantile crossing; safeguards, constraints, or calibration diagnostics are not discussed or evaluated.
- Missing direct bias measurement in complex tasks: overestimation reduction is not directly quantified on MuJoCo; e.g., Monte Carlo rollouts to estimate true returns and measure Q bias across states for TQC vs TD3/SAC are absent.
- Robustness to heavy-tailed/heteroscedastic noise: TQC’s behavior under non-Gaussian or heteroscedastic rewards (heavy tails, outliers) and the role of the Huber quantile loss parameter are not investigated.
- Adaptive truncation based on uncertainty: there is no mechanism to vary d per state/action using predictive quantile spread, variance, or other uncertainty proxies; learned or meta-adaptive truncation could be developed and was not.
- Interaction with entropy temperature: the joint dynamics between auto-tuned α and truncation (e.g., whether α compensates or amplifies truncation-induced bias) are not analyzed; a coordinated adaptation strategy is missing.
- Risk profile implications: truncation downweights right-tail outcomes and may implicitly induce risk-averse behavior; effects on CVaR, quantile objectives, and risk-sensitive performance are not measured.
- Missing comparisons to distributional continuous baselines: no head-to-head evaluation against D4PG, IQN-based actor-critics, or Q2-Opt under identical budgets and hyperparameter tuning protocols.
- Generalization and robustness: evaluation is limited to standard MuJoCo tasks; performance under domain randomization, environment perturbations, alternative physics engines, or real-robot tasks is not assessed.
- Sample-efficiency vs compute trade-off: while overhead is reported, the return-per-GPU-hour or normalized efficiency metrics are not analyzed; scaling behavior on image-based observations or larger models remains unclear.
- Deterministic/low-variance regimes: when return variance is low (e.g., HalfCheetah’s best d=0), truncation may hurt; criteria to detect and disable truncation automatically are not provided.
- Discount factor dependence: whether optimal truncation intensity depends on Îł and how TQC behaves across different discount factors is not studied.
- Distributional alignment in the loss: Eq. (value_loss) matches M learned quantiles to kN target atoms; formal alignment between target distribution support and learned quantile fractions (τm) is not derived; implications for stability and consistency are unclear.
- Separation of aleatoric vs epistemic uncertainty: the method leverages aleatoric via quantiles and epistemic via ensembling, but their contributions are not disentangled; Bayesian critics or bootstrapped ensembles to explicitly model epistemic uncertainty are not explored.
- Alternative robust aggregators: beyond dropping the top kN atoms, trimmed means, quantile-weighted averages, or M-estimators might offer different bias-variance trade-offs; systematic comparison is absent.
- Impact on exploration: truncating TD targets could affect exploratory behavior in maximum-entropy RL; how TQC influences exploration incentives and visitation patterns is not measured.
- Sparse/long-horizon tasks: effects of truncation on credit assignment in sparse-reward or long-horizon environments are unknown; potential underestimation could impede learning.
- Extension to on-policy and discrete domains: applicability of TQC-style truncation to PPO/TRPO value learning or to discrete-action settings (e.g., Rainbow/DDQN) is not evaluated.
- Reproducibility breadth and tuning fairness: per-environment tuning of d raises concerns about benchmark-specific overfitting; larger seed counts, cross-implementation consistency (TF vs PyTorch), and standardized tuning protocols are needed.
- Target network dynamics: how EMA rate β interacts with truncation and distributional training (e.g., stability vs bias) is not analyzed; guidelines for β selection are missing.
- Theoretical link to Jensen overestimation: formal proofs or bounds connecting truncation of quantiles to reductions in max-operator/Jensen overestimation under assumptions on U(a) and function approximation error are absent.
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.