Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree

Reinforcement Learning

Project: Train a Smartcab to Drive

Welcome to the fourth project of the Machine Learning Engineer Nanodegree! In this notebook, template code has already been provided for you to aid in your analysis of the Smartcab and your implemented learning algorithm. You will not need to modify the included code beyond what is requested. There will be questions that you must answer which relate to the project and the visualizations provided in the notebook. Each section where you will answer a question is preceded by a 'Question X' header. Carefully read each question and provide thorough answers in the following text boxes that begin with 'Answer:'. Your project submission will be evaluated based on your answers to each of the questions and the implementation you provide in agent.py.

Note: Code and Markdown cells can be executed using the Shift + Enter keyboard shortcut. In addition, Markdown cells can be edited by typically double-clicking the cell to enter edit mode.


Getting Started

In this project, you will work towards constructing an optimized Q-Learning driving agent that will navigate a Smartcab through its environment towards a goal. Since the Smartcab is expected to drive passengers from one location to another, the driving agent will be evaluated on two very important metrics: Safety and Reliability. A driving agent that gets the Smartcab to its destination while running red lights or narrowly avoiding accidents would be considered unsafe. Similarly, a driving agent that frequently fails to reach the destination in time would be considered unreliable. Maximizing the driving agent's safety and reliability would ensure that Smartcabs have a permanent place in the transportation industry.

Safety and Reliability are measured using a letter-grade system as follows:

Grade Safety Reliability
A+ Agent commits no traffic violations,
and always chooses the correct action.
Agent reaches the destination in time
for 100% of trips.
A Agent commits few minor traffic violations,
such as failing to move on a green light.
Agent reaches the destination on time
for at least 90% of trips.
B Agent commits frequent minor traffic violations,
such as failing to move on a green light.
Agent reaches the destination on time
for at least 80% of trips.
C Agent commits at least one major traffic violation,
such as driving through a red light.
Agent reaches the destination on time
for at least 70% of trips.
D Agent causes at least one minor accident,
such as turning left on green with oncoming traffic.
Agent reaches the destination on time
for at least 60% of trips.
F Agent causes at least one major accident,
such as driving through a red light with cross-traffic.
Agent fails to reach the destination on time
for at least 60% of trips.

To assist evaluating these important metrics, you will need to load visualization code that will be used later on in the project. Run the code cell below to import this code which is required for your analysis.


In [1]:
# Import the visualization code
import visuals as vs

# Pretty display for notebooks
%matplotlib inline

Understand the World

Before starting to work on implementing your driving agent, it's necessary to first understand the world (environment) which the Smartcab and driving agent work in. One of the major components to building a self-learning agent is understanding the characteristics about the agent, which includes how the agent operates. To begin, simply run the agent.py agent code exactly how it is -- no need to make any additions whatsoever. Let the resulting simulation run for some time to see the various working components. Note that in the visual simulation (if enabled), the white vehicle is the Smartcab.

Question 1

In a few sentences, describe what you observe during the simulation when running the default agent.py agent code. Some things you could consider:

  • Does the Smartcab move at all during the simulation?
  • What kind of rewards is the driving agent receiving?
  • How does the light changing color affect the rewards?

Hint: From the /smartcab/ top-level directory (where this notebook is located), run the command

'python smartcab/agent.py'

Answer:

  • The Smartcab does not move during the simulation. By default, the Smartcab (labeled with the Udacity logo) remains stationary at its initial intersection.
  • Random seeding is applied to the problem, i.e., the Smartcab is placed in a different starting position with each simulation, likewise, starting positions and travel directions by other cars are randomly seeded as well.
  • Visual information is quite coarse, e.g., turn-signals are not apparent on other cars (difficult to tell if on-coming traffic are making left turns, in which case, a Smartcab left turn would be allowable as well). Also relative velocities are hard to discern, e.g., if stopped at a red light, wishing to make a legal right turn, it's unclear how much time the Smartcar has before right-of-way traffic headed towards the intersection actually passes through it.
  • Floating point rewards (> 0) and penalities (0 <) are being assigned to the Smartcab after each time-step based on its previous action.
  • Penalities (negative rewards) are expected, e.g., idling at a green light with no oncoming traffic, as well are rewards, e.g., idling at red light.
  • Assigned rewards are not consistently valued, e.g., the following sequential rewards were observed: idling at a green light with no oncoming traffic was penalized (-5.83), but continuing to idle at the same green light lessened slightly (-5.59), and then worsened (-5.95). Idling at a green light with oncoming traffic was provided marginal reward (0.0 ~ 2.0). Idling at a red light provided a larger reward (1 ~ 3).

Understand the Code

In addition to understanding the world, it is also necessary to understand the code itself that governs how the world, simulation, and so on operate. Attempting to create a driving agent would be difficult without having at least explored the "hidden" devices that make everything work. In the /smartcab/ top-level directory, there are two folders: /logs/ (which will be used later) and /smartcab/. Open the /smartcab/ folder and explore each Python file included, then answer the following question.

Question 2

  • In the agent.py Python file, choose three flags that can be set and explain how they change the simulation.
  • In the environment.py Python file, what Environment class function is called when an agent performs an action?
  • In the simulator.py Python file, what is the difference between the 'render_text()' function and the 'render()' function?
  • In the planner.py Python file, will the 'next_waypoint() function consider the North-South or East-West direction first?

Answer:

In agent.py several exist, e.g., several flags set for the driving environment:

  • verbose: (boolean) setting to True displays additional output from the simulation
  • num_dummies: (integer) number of dummy agents in the environment
  • grid_size: (integer) number of intersections (columns, rows)

In environment.py, the act function considers the action taken by the Smartcab and performs it if legal. In addition, it also assigns a reward according to the based on local traffic laws.

In simulator.py, render_text() writes simulation updates into the console, while render() updates the GUI traffic map.

In planner.py, the next_waypoint() function considers the East-West direction of travel, before North-South.


Implement a Basic Driving Agent

The first step to creating an optimized Q-Learning driving agent is getting the agent to actually take valid actions. In this case, a valid action is one of None, (do nothing) 'Left' (turn left), 'Right' (turn right), or 'Forward' (go forward). For your first implementation, navigate to the 'choose_action()' agent function and make the driving agent randomly choose one of these actions. Note that you have access to several class variables that will help you write this functionality, such as 'self.learning' and 'self.valid_actions'. Once implemented, run the agent file and simulation briefly to confirm that your driving agent is taking a random action each time step.

Basic Agent Simulation Results

To obtain results from the initial simulation, you will need to adjust following flags:

  • 'enforce_deadline' - Set this to True to force the driving agent to capture whether it reaches the destination in time.
  • 'update_delay' - Set this to a small value (such as 0.01) to reduce the time between steps in each trial.
  • 'log_metrics' - Set this to True to log the simluation results as a .csv file in /logs/.
  • 'n_test' - Set this to '10' to perform 10 testing trials.

Optionally, you may disable to the visual simulation (which can make the trials go faster) by setting the 'display' flag to False. Flags that have been set here should be returned to their default setting when debugging. It is important that you understand what each flag does and how it affects the simulation!

Once you have successfully completed the initial simulation (there should have been 20 training trials and 10 testing trials), run the code cell below to visualize the results. Note that log files are overwritten when identical simulations are run, so be careful with what log file is being loaded! Run the agent.py file after setting the flags from projects/smartcab folder instead of projects/smartcab/smartcab.


In [15]:
# Load the 'sim_no-learning' log file from the initial simulation results
vs.plot_trials('sim_no-learning.csv')


Question 3

Using the visualization above that was produced from your initial simulation, provide an analysis and make several observations about the driving agent. Be sure that you are making at least one observation about each panel present in the visualization. Some things you could consider:

  • How frequently is the driving agent making bad decisions? How many of those bad decisions cause accidents?
  • Given that the agent is driving randomly, does the rate of reliabilty make sense?
  • What kind of rewards is the agent receiving for its actions? Do the rewards suggest it has been penalized heavily?
  • As the number of trials increases, does the outcome of results change significantly?
  • Would this Smartcab be considered safe and/or reliable for its passengers? Why or why not?

Answer:

  • How frequently is the driving agent making bad decisions? How many of those bad decisions cause accidents?
    • On average, the agent is making bad decisions ~40% of the time.
    • On average, ~25% of these bad decisions are causing accidents, i.e., ~10% of all decisions lead to accidents.
  • Given that the agent is driving randomly, does the rate of reliabilty make sense?
    • Somewhat; it can certainly be justified. Given the actions (4 choices: None, L, R, F) and environment (traffic lights and other traffic), it seems like bad behavior is a bit of a coin flip. Let's further rationalize this:
      • Assume that agent is equally likely (p = 0.5) of encountering red or green light
      • For green lights, R, F, are always valid actions. Additionally, when there is no oncoming traffic (assume 80% of the time), L is also valid.
      • For red lights, None is always a valid action, as is R with no oncoming traffic (assume 80% of the time).
      • Computing the probabilities of success, if we assume R, F, L, None are all equally likely of occurring, for green lights, we're reliable 65% of the time (unreliable 35%); for red lights, a reliablilty of 45% is obtained (55% unreliable).
      • Averaging the unreliable probabilities for both light situations (since either is equally likely), the unreliable rate is 45%. Quite close to the ~40% observed!
  • What kind of rewards is the agent receiving for its actions? Do the rewards suggest it has been penalized heavily?
    • On average, the rewards are negative, and close to -5, which suggests that it has been heavily penalized.
  • As the number of trials increases, does the outcome of results change significantly?
    • Several observations can be made:
      • Frequency of bad actions, exploration factor, and learning factor remain consistent over all trials.
      • Although there is some scatter with average reward per action and rate of reliability, rerunning this simulation multiple times demonstrated no correlation to age of trial.
  • Would this Smartcab be considered safe and/or reliable for its passengers? Why or why not?
    • In no universe would this Smartcab be considered safe or reliable -- unless it's competing in a destruction derby, then yes.. Actions have a 40% chance of being violations or accidents - incredibly dangerous! Worse yet, the agent never achieves a reliability score above 20% -- abysmal. You'd likely accomplish similar performance while driving drunk, blindfolded, with earplugs, covered in ants.

Inform the Driving Agent

The second step to creating an optimized Q-learning driving agent is defining a set of states that the agent can occupy in the environment. Depending on the input, sensory data, and additional variables available to the driving agent, a set of states can be defined for the agent so that it can eventually learn what action it should take when occupying a state. The condition of 'if state then action' for each state is called a policy, and is ultimately what the driving agent is expected to learn. Without defining states, the driving agent would never understand which action is most optimal -- or even what environmental variables and conditions it cares about!

Identify States

Inspecting the 'build_state()' agent function shows that the driving agent is given the following data from the environment:

  • 'waypoint', which is the direction the Smartcab should drive leading to the destination, relative to the Smartcab's heading.
  • 'inputs', which is the sensor data from the Smartcab. It includes
    • 'light', the color of the light.
    • 'left', the intended direction of travel for a vehicle to the Smartcab's left. Returns None if no vehicle is present.
    • 'right', the intended direction of travel for a vehicle to the Smartcab's right. Returns None if no vehicle is present.
    • 'oncoming', the intended direction of travel for a vehicle across the intersection from the Smartcab. Returns None if no vehicle is present.
  • 'deadline', which is the number of actions remaining for the Smartcab to reach the destination before running out of time.

Question 4

Which features available to the agent are most relevant for learning both safety and efficiency? Why are these features appropriate for modeling the Smartcab in the environment? If you did not choose some features, why are those features not appropriate?

Answer: Tricky question - it asks, which features (implying multiple features) are the most relevant (implying a single prominent feature).

First, let's begin with a discussion of features (assumed grouping of 'waypoint', 'inputs', and 'deadline'):

  • 'input' is the only one that prescribes what manuevers can safely be performed.
  • 'waypoint' is the only feature that can direct the smartcar along the correct direction of travel. Not knowning the final destination turns the policy into a random walk, where we hope to (randomly) arrive at the destination.
  • 'deadline' can be used to adjust policy, i.e., if time is not a consideration, the car can select safer actions, but if the deadline is of concern, it can be much more aggressive.

Now, the features most relevant to safety and efficiency appear to be 'input', for safey, and 'waypoint', for efficiency. Next, a detailed discussion follows that

Define a State Space

When defining a set of states that the agent can occupy, it is necessary to consider the size of the state space. That is to say, if you expect the driving agent to learn a policy for each state, you would need to have an optimal action for every state the agent can occupy. If the number of all possible states is very large, it might be the case that the driving agent never learns what to do in some states, which can lead to uninformed decisions. For example, consider a case where the following features are used to define the state of the Smartcab:

('is_raining', 'is_foggy', 'is_red_light', 'turn_left', 'no_traffic', 'previous_turn_left', 'time_of_day').

How frequently would the agent occupy a state like (False, True, True, True, False, False, '3AM')? Without a near-infinite amount of time for training, it's doubtful the agent would ever learn the proper action!

Question 5

If a state is defined using the features you've selected from Question 4, what would be the size of the state space? Given what you know about the evironment and how it is simulated, do you think the driving agent could learn a policy for each possible state within a reasonable number of training trials?
Hint: Consider the combinations of features to calculate the total number of states!

Answer: If 'inputs' and 'waypoint' are used to direct the smartcab, there are following states:

  • (2 states) 'input' 'light': red (stop), green (go)
  • (0 states) 'input' 'right':
  • (2 states) 'input' 'left': forward (True/False)
  • (3 states) 'input' 'oncoming': None, forward, right
  • (3 states) 'waypoint': forward, left, right

Talking through our minimum state set:

  • Light states (green/red) are mandatory. Additionally, based upon their state, we can apply common right-of-way rules to reduce the number of other states.

  • Vehicles travelling from the right are helpful but not necessary. As the smartcab moves through an intersection, regardless of its direction (forward, left, right), it does not need to know what vehicles are travelling from East to West, i.e., 'right' vehicles.

  • Vehicles travelling from the left are helpful, but it is only necessary to know if they are going forward. Those that are turning right will never collide (when obeying traffic rules). Those that are turning left can only do so when they have a green light, which implies our smartcab has a red light.

  • Oncoming vehicles provide more information than right or left vehicles, but not each state is necessary. The smartcab requires knowledge of its action, except for left turns, since in undertaking this action, it would be foreced to yeild to the smartcab.

  • Waypoints are mandatory. Without them, it'd be a random walk to get to the destination.

The product sum of all states (2, 2, 3, 3) is equal to the total number of combinations, which is 36. Had the number of states not been paired back (2, 4, 4, 4, 3) we would have had nearly a order of magnitude more (384)!

Update the Driving Agent State

For your second implementation, navigate to the 'build_state()' agent function. With the justification you've provided in Question 4, you will now set the 'state' variable to a tuple of all the features necessary for Q-Learning. Confirm your driving agent is updating its state by running the agent file and simulation briefly and note whether the state is displaying. If the visual simulation is used, confirm that the updated state corresponds with what is seen in the simulation.

Note: Remember to reset simulation flags to their default setting when making this observation!


Implement a Q-Learning Driving Agent

The third step to creating an optimized Q-Learning agent is to begin implementing the functionality of Q-Learning itself. The concept of Q-Learning is fairly straightforward: For every state the agent visits, create an entry in the Q-table for all state-action pairs available. Then, when the agent encounters a state and performs an action, update the Q-value associated with that state-action pair based on the reward received and the interative update rule implemented. Of course, additional benefits come from Q-Learning, such that we can have the agent choose the best action for each state based on the Q-values of each state-action pair possible. For this project, you will be implementing a decaying, $\epsilon$-greedy Q-learning algorithm with no discount factor. Follow the implementation instructions under each TODO in the agent functions.

Note that the agent attribute self.Q is a dictionary: This is how the Q-table will be formed. Each state will be a key of the self.Q dictionary, and each value will then be another dictionary that holds the action and Q-value. Here is an example:

{ 'state-1': { 
    'action-1' : Qvalue-1,
    'action-2' : Qvalue-2,
     ...
   },
  'state-2': {
    'action-1' : Qvalue-1,
     ...
   },
   ...
}

Furthermore, note that you are expected to use a decaying $\epsilon$ (exploration) factor. Hence, as the number of trials increases, $\epsilon$ should decrease towards 0. This is because the agent is expected to learn from its behavior and begin acting on its learned behavior. Additionally, The agent will be tested on what it has learned after $\epsilon$ has passed a certain threshold (the default threshold is 0.01). For the initial Q-Learning implementation, you will be implementing a linear decaying function for $\epsilon$.

Q-Learning Simulation Results

To obtain results from the initial Q-Learning implementation, you will need to adjust the following flags and setup:

  • 'enforce_deadline' - Set this to True to force the driving agent to capture whether it reaches the destination in time.
  • 'update_delay' - Set this to a small value (such as 0.01) to reduce the time between steps in each trial.
  • 'log_metrics' - Set this to True to log the simluation results as a .csv file and the Q-table as a .txt file in /logs/.
  • 'n_test' - Set this to '10' to perform 10 testing trials.
  • 'learning' - Set this to 'True' to tell the driving agent to use your Q-Learning implementation.

In addition, use the following decay function for $\epsilon$:

$$ \epsilon_{t+1} = \epsilon_{t} - 0.05, \hspace{10px}\textrm{for trial number } t$$

If you have difficulty getting your implementation to work, try setting the 'verbose' flag to True to help debug. Flags that have been set here should be returned to their default setting when debugging. It is important that you understand what each flag does and how it affects the simulation!

Once you have successfully completed the initial Q-Learning simulation, run the code cell below to visualize the results. Note that log files are overwritten when identical simulations are run, so be careful with what log file is being loaded!


In [5]:
# Load the 'sim_default-learning' file from the default Q-Learning simulation
vs.plot_trials('sim_default-learning_saved.csv')


Question 6

Using the visualization above that was produced from your default Q-Learning simulation, provide an analysis and make observations about the driving agent like in Question 3. Note that the simulation should have also produced the Q-table in a text file which can help you make observations about the agent's learning. Some additional things you could consider:

  • Are there any observations that are similar between the basic driving agent and the default Q-Learning agent?
  • Approximately how many training trials did the driving agent require before testing? Does that number make sense given the epsilon-tolerance?
  • Is the decaying function you implemented for $\epsilon$ (the exploration factor) accurately represented in the parameters panel?
  • As the number of training trials increased, did the number of bad actions decrease? Did the average reward increase?
  • How does the safety and reliability rating compare to the initial driving agent?

Answer:

  • Are there any observations that are similar between the basic driving agent and the default Q-Learning agent?
    • Overall, although improvements are visible for the improved Q-Learning agent, the safety and reliability of the basic driving agent (no learning) and default Q-Learning agent are commensurate; both learners received failing grades for safety and reliability.
    • Rolling rate of reliability looks similar between agents.
    • Rolling (average) reward per action are roughly similar between agents. There is a slight improvement towards 19th and 20th trials, but it may be the result of a stochastic process, rather than a true learning improvement.
    • Learning factors are constant (0.5) for both agents.
  • Approximately how many training trials did the driving agent require before testing? Does that number make sense given the epsilon-tolerance?
    • Twenty training trials occured, which given the epsilon parameters (initial of 1.0, step sizes of -0.05) is expected, since 1.0/0.05 = 20.
  • Is the decaying function you implemented for ϵϵ (the exploration factor) accurately represented in the parameters panel?
    • Yes, a simple linear function, with a slope of -0.05 is shown.
  • As the number of training trials increased, did the number of bad actions decrease? Did the average reward increase?
    • In a favorable manner, the number of bad actions decreased with the number of training trials, by roughly 30%.
    • Toward the end of training, the average rolling reward increased by a small margin.
  • How does the safety and reliability rating compare to the initial driving agent?
    • As mentioned earlier, unfortunately, the Q-Learning agent scored as poorly as the basic agent.

Improve the Q-Learning Driving Agent

The third step to creating an optimized Q-Learning agent is to perform the optimization! Now that the Q-Learning algorithm is implemented and the driving agent is successfully learning, it's necessary to tune settings and adjust learning paramaters so the driving agent learns both safety and efficiency. Typically this step will require a lot of trial and error, as some settings will invariably make the learning worse. One thing to keep in mind is the act of learning itself and the time that this takes: In theory, we could allow the agent to learn for an incredibly long amount of time; however, another goal of Q-Learning is to transition from experimenting with unlearned behavior to acting on learned behavior. For example, always allowing the agent to perform a random action during training (if $\epsilon = 1$ and never decays) will certainly make it learn, but never let it act. When improving on your Q-Learning implementation, consider the impliciations it creates and whether it is logistically sensible to make a particular adjustment.

Improved Q-Learning Simulation Results

To obtain results from the initial Q-Learning implementation, you will need to adjust the following flags and setup:

  • 'enforce_deadline' - Set this to True to force the driving agent to capture whether it reaches the destination in time.
  • 'update_delay' - Set this to a small value (such as 0.01) to reduce the time between steps in each trial.
  • 'log_metrics' - Set this to True to log the simluation results as a .csv file and the Q-table as a .txt file in /logs/.
  • 'learning' - Set this to 'True' to tell the driving agent to use your Q-Learning implementation.
  • 'optimized' - Set this to 'True' to tell the driving agent you are performing an optimized version of the Q-Learning implementation.

Additional flags that can be adjusted as part of optimizing the Q-Learning agent:

  • 'n_test' - Set this to some positive number (previously 10) to perform that many testing trials.
  • 'alpha' - Set this to a real number between 0 - 1 to adjust the learning rate of the Q-Learning algorithm.
  • 'epsilon' - Set this to a real number between 0 - 1 to adjust the starting exploration factor of the Q-Learning algorithm.
  • 'tolerance' - set this to some small value larger than 0 (default was 0.05) to set the epsilon threshold for testing.

Furthermore, use a decaying function of your choice for $\epsilon$ (the exploration factor). Note that whichever function you use, it must decay to 'tolerance' at a reasonable rate. The Q-Learning agent will not begin testing until this occurs. Some example decaying functions (for $t$, the number of trials):

$$ \epsilon = a^t, \textrm{for } 0 < a < 1 \hspace{50px}\epsilon = \frac{1}{t^2}\hspace{50px}\epsilon = e^{-at}, \textrm{for } 0 < a < 1 \hspace{50px} \epsilon = \cos(at), \textrm{for } 0 < a < 1$$

You may also use a decaying function for $\alpha$ (the learning rate) if you so choose, however this is typically less common. If you do so, be sure that it adheres to the inequality $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$.

If you have difficulty getting your implementation to work, try setting the 'verbose' flag to True to help debug. Flags that have been set here should be returned to their default setting when debugging. It is important that you understand what each flag does and how it affects the simulation!

Once you have successfully completed the improved Q-Learning simulation, run the code cell below to visualize the results. Note that log files are overwritten when identical simulations are run, so be careful with what log file is being loaded!


In [6]:
# Load the 'sim_improved-learning' file from the improved Q-Learning simulation
vs.plot_trials('sim_improved-learning_saved.csv')


Question 7

Using the visualization above that was produced from your improved Q-Learning simulation, provide a final analysis and make observations about the improved driving agent like in Question 6. Questions you should answer:

  • What decaying function was used for epsilon (the exploration factor)?
  • Approximately how many training trials were needed for your agent before begining testing?
  • What epsilon-tolerance and alpha (learning rate) did you use? Why did you use them?
  • How much improvement was made with this Q-Learner when compared to the default Q-Learner from the previous section?
  • Would you say that the Q-Learner results show that your driving agent successfully learned an appropriate policy?
  • Are you satisfied with the safety and reliability ratings of the Smartcab?

Answer:

Note, the answers below refer to a 'frozen' implementation, which seemed to work reasonably well and return consistent results. Several epsilon and alpha functions were considered, e.g., constant, linearly decreasing, quadratically decreasing, exponentially decreasing. Although higher reliability ratings were occasionally found, results were not strongly repeatable, or the (seemingly beneficial) tactics employed did not have a true impact, e.g., lowering test trial count, lead to higher variabililty of test output, which sometimes resulted in a better grade.

  • *What decaying function was used for epsilon (the exploration factor)? What epsilon-tolerance and alpha (learning rate) did you use? Why did you use them?**

    • For epsilon, the following functions were used: $$ \epsilon = \epsilon_0 - 1 + e^{(-a t)} $$ where $$ \epsilon_0 = 1.0, \quad a = 1 \times 10^{-2}, \quad \triangle t = 0.0005 $$
    • For alpha, a comparable function was used: $$ \alpha = \alpha_0 - 1 + e^{(-a t)} $$ where $$ \alpha_0 = 0.8, \quad a = 1 \times 10^{-3}, \quad \triangle t = 0.0005 $$
  • Approximately how many training trials were needed for your agent before begining testing? About 600 trials.

  • How much improvement was made with this Q-Learner when compared to the default Q-Learner from the previous section?
    • Safety rating has improved drastically, from failing (F) to excellent (A+).
    • Reliability has also improved significantly.
  • Would you say that the Q-Learner results show that your driving agent successfully learned an appropriate policy. Are you satisfied with the safety and reliability ratings of the Smartcab?
    • Q-Learning learned a policy, and based on the reward system, has favored safety over reliability.
      • Since the negative rewards from obtaining a safety violation are much more significant than positive reliability-based rewards (from correctly delivering a passenger to their destination), during the learning process, the smartcab first makes choices that do not result in safety violations, and second, attempts to obtain reliability-based rewards. When the number of trials is reduced, the smartcab was able to ace the safety score, but blow the reliable score. This behavior was consistent for the various epsilon and alpha decay functions selected.

Define an Optimal Policy

Sometimes, the answer to the important question "what am I trying to get my agent to learn?" only has a theoretical answer and cannot be concretely described. Here, however, you can concretely define what it is the agent is trying to learn, and that is the U.S. right-of-way traffic laws. Since these laws are known information, you can further define, for each state the Smartcab is occupying, the optimal action for the driving agent based on these laws. In that case, we call the set of optimal state-action pairs an optimal policy. Hence, unlike some theoretical answers, it is clear whether the agent is acting "incorrectly" not only by the reward (penalty) it receives, but also by pure observation. If the agent drives through a red light, we both see it receive a negative reward but also know that it is not the correct behavior. This can be used to your advantage for verifying whether the policy your driving agent has learned is the correct one, or if it is a suboptimal policy.

Question 8

Provide a few examples (using the states you've defined) of what an optimal policy for this problem would look like. Afterwards, investigate the 'sim_improved-learning.txt' text file to see the results of your improved Q-Learning algorithm. For each state that has been recorded from the simulation, is the policy (the action with the highest value) correct for the given state? Are there any states where the policy is different than what would be expected from an optimal policy? Provide an example of a state and all state-action rewards recorded, and explain why it is the correct policy.

Answer:

Reviewing the 36 policies identified (it was able to exhaustively visit every one identified earlier), the overwhelming policies were optimal. However in addition to the optimial policies, some suboptimal policies have been highlighted below.

Recall the states defined earlier:

  • (2 states) 'input' 'light': red (stop), green (go)
  • (2 states) 'input' 'left': forward (True/False)
  • (3 states) 'input' 'oncoming': None, forward, right
  • (3 states) 'waypoint': forward, left, right

(1) Consider the following input scenario: ('red', False, None, 'right'), which leads to the following policy ratings:

  • right: optimal
  • None: suboptimal
  • left: incorrect
  • right: incorrect

According to the smartcab learning log, 'forward' = -11.23, None = 2.06, 'right' = 1.16, 'left' = -10.06, which is suboptimal. While suboptimal, it's a safe manuever that still allowed the smartcab to obtain an ideal reliability rating during test. Had the negative rewards accumulated faster (or been of larger magnitude) it is likely that 'right' would have secured the greatest Q value through additional testing rounds.

(2) Consider a small variant of the previous input scenario: ('red', False, 'forward', 'right'), which leads to the following policy ratings:

  • right: optimal
  • None: suboptimal
  • left: incorrect
  • right: incorrect

According to the smartcab log, 'forward' : -30.18, 'None' : 2.23, 'right' : 0.99, 'left' : -37.58, which again is suboptimal, and the previous commentary still appears to be relevant.

(3) Consider the following input scenario: ('red', False, None, 'forward'), which leads to the following policy ratings:

  • None: optimal
  • right: suboptimal
  • left: incorrect
  • right: incorrect

According to the smartcab learning log, 'forward' = -16.83, None = 1.69, 'right' = 0.48, 'left' = -13.75, which is optimal!

In all cases, it's interesting to note that the smartcab does incredibly well in identifying the incorrect action. This is to be expected, as the negative rewards received for safety violations far outweighs the positive rewards received for being reliabilty correct.


Optional: Future Rewards - Discount Factor, 'gamma'

Curiously, as part of the Q-Learning algorithm, you were asked to not use the discount factor, 'gamma' in the implementation. Including future rewards in the algorithm is used to aid in propogating positive rewards backwards from a future state to the current state. Essentially, if the driving agent is given the option to make several actions to arrive at different states, including future rewards will bias the agent towards states that could provide even more rewards. An example of this would be the driving agent moving towards a goal: With all actions and rewards equal, moving towards the goal would theoretically yield better rewards if there is an additional reward for reaching the goal. However, even though in this project, the driving agent is trying to reach a destination in the allotted time, including future rewards will not benefit the agent. In fact, if the agent were given many trials to learn, it could negatively affect Q-values!

Optional Question 9

There are two characteristics about the project that invalidate the use of future rewards in the Q-Learning algorithm. One characteristic has to do with the Smartcab itself, and the other has to do with the environment. Can you figure out what they are and why future rewards won't work for this project?

Answer:

Note: Once you have completed all of the code implementations and successfully answered each question above, you may finalize your work by exporting the iPython Notebook as an HTML document. You can do this by using the menu above and navigating to
File -> Download as -> HTML (.html). Include the finished document along with this notebook as your submission.