PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Tree Search-Based Policy Optimization under Stochastic Execution Delay

David Valensi, Esther Derman, Shie Mannor, Gal Dalal

reinforcement learningReinforcement LearningDelayEfficientZeroTree-searchSample efficiency
84.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
86.70100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
84.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We prove results for Reinforcement Learning with stochastic delay, devise a corresponding tree-search based algorithm, and successfully test it on such environments.

Abstract

The standard formulation of Markov decision processes (MDPs) assumes that the agent's decisions are executed immediately. However, in numerous realistic applications such as robotics or healthcare, actions are performed with a delay whose value can even be stochastic. In this work, we introduce stochastic delayed execution MDPs, a new formalism addressing random delays without resorting to state augmentation. We show that given observed delay values, it is sufficient to perform a policy search in the class of Markov policies in order to reach optimal performance, thus extending the deterministic fixed delay case. Armed with this insight, we devise DEZ, a model-based algorithm that optimizes over the class of Markov policies. DEZ leverages Monte-Carlo tree search similar to its non-delayed variant EfficientZero to accurately infer future states from the action queue. Thus, it handles delayed execution while preserving the sample efficiency of EfficientZero. Through empirical analysis, we stress that none of the prior benchmarks consistently outperforms others across different delays. We demonstrate that our algorithm surpasses all benchmark methods in Atari games when dealing with constant or stochastic delays. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/davidva1/Delayed-EZ}.

Author context

Most prolific author: 4 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)