Predictive auxiliary objectives in deep RL mimic learning in the brain
Ching Fang, Kimberly L Stachenfeld

TL;DR
This paper explores how predictive auxiliary objectives in deep reinforcement learning enhance representation learning, stabilize training, and mimic neural activity patterns observed in the brain, especially in the hippocampus, visual cortex, and striatum.
Contribution
It demonstrates that predictive objectives improve learning stability and transfer in resource-limited RL architectures and establish parallels between RL representations and brain regions.
Findings
Predictive objectives stabilize learning in resource-limited models.
Longer predictive horizons support better transfer of representations.
RL representational changes resemble neural activity in hippocampus, visual cortex, and striatum.
Abstract
The ability to predict upcoming events has been hypothesized to comprise a key aspect of natural and machine cognition. This is supported by trends in deep reinforcement learning (RL), where self-supervised auxiliary objectives such as prediction are widely used to support representation learning and improve task performance. Here, we study the effects predictive auxiliary objectives have on representation learning across different modules of an RL system and how these mimic representational changes observed in the brain. We find that predictive objectives improve and stabilize learning particularly in resource-limited architectures, and we identify settings where longer predictive horizons better support representational transfer. Furthermore, we find that representational changes in this RL system bear a striking resemblance to changes in neural activity observed in the brain across…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 oral
The description of the methods and approach is fairly clear and the overall goals of the paper are clear, with some room for improvement. The numerical experiments provided demonstrate how a predictive loss benefits the learned representations available in a downstream area (not necessarily directly related to the area responsible for prediction), without the "predictive area" necessarily providing any direct information to the area responsible for valuation and action selection.
One important feature that isn't clear from what is presented in the paper is how the environment itself may or may not affect these results. I don't find any examples of what gridworld environments are being solved by these models, let alone how complex they are. Surely the predictability of the environment itself has some bearing on the rate of learning and retrainability for novel tasks, not to mention the quality of representations? Please provide examples of these environments. If possi
- Overall I really enjoy reading this work, due to its clear presentation both in the text and in the figures, experiments testing different perspectives of the model, and the strong link to the brain - This work introduces a multi-region model that is developed from a normative perspective, instead of fitting to recorded data, which can be extended to other tasks and to test against new biological evidence - I appreciate the discussion of the limitation that predictive auxiliary objectives may
- It's interesting to see in section 4.4 where the authors describe the effects of value learning in the encoder network, but this part feels somewhat disconnected from the rest of the paper, as the primary focus is to demonstrate how predictive objectives can lead to representation changes similar to those seen in the brain
* The experiments seem to be done soundly and rigorously. * The authors do an excellent job introducing various relevant neuroscience experiments and grounding the phenomenon into specific predictions for their model. * The authors use an exciting emerging framework of auxiliary losses to tackle an important problem, which is modeling multiple regions of the brain simultaneously while performing a difficult task.
The related works section is a little small/sparse. The authors do a good job in highlighting works on auxiliary predictive losses in RL within the machine learning realm, but I think there is also a growing body of work that is using this framework to produce various behavioral phenomenon in cognitive science/neuroscience. These are complimentary works to the current submission and would be good to include. Here are some examples that I feel should definitely be included: 1. Kumar et al. 2022
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeural dynamics and brain function · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies · Face Recognition and Perception
