A fixed discount factor in Q-learning imposes a single planning horizon throughout training, despite the differing demands of early exploration and long-term credit assignment. We propose Q(γH), a multi-horizon Q-learning framework that maintains multiple discount-specific heads and adaptively combines them at control time using an entropy-derived confidence signal. The resulting state-dependent mixing weights shift control from shorter- to longer-horizon heads as policy confidence increases, enabling adaptive horizon mixing without modifying individual Bellman updates. Across classical control and deep reinforcement-learning benchmarks, Q(γH) shows its strongest improvements on delayed-credit tasks relative to strong fixed-discount baselines. By decoupling horizon adaptation from the underlying learning updates, Q(γH) provides a lightweight framework for adaptive planning-horizon control in reinforcement learning, avoiding the need for manual discount-factor selection while remaining compatible with standard value-learning methods.
Figures & tables
Method
Multi-
State-
Gate
Bellman
Control
head
dep.
signal
changed
mix
Q( γH ) (ours)
✓
✓
Entropy
No
✓
Ogawa et al. [ 13 ]
×
×
Critic loss
Yes
×
Moghimi et al. [ 11 ]
✓
×
None
No
×
Nafi et al. [ 12 ]
✓
×
None
No
×
Chen et al. [ 2 ]
✓
×
None
No
×
Table 1: Comparison of Q( γH ) with closely related methods. State-dep. = state-dependent mixing or adaptation. Bellman changed = whether Bellman targets are modified. Control mix = whether discount-specific heads are mixed at action selection.
Environment
Type
∣A∣
Repr.
Key challenge
Tabular / linear
MountainCar
Continuous
3
TC (IHT 2048)
Delayed credit
Acrobot
Continuous
3
TC (IHT 4096)
Delayed credit
LunarLander
Continuous
4
TC (IHT 8192)
Dense reward
Gridworld
Navigation
4
Tabular
Deterministic
WindyGridworld
Navigation
8
Tabular
Stochastic wind
Table 2: Experimental environments used in evaluations. TC denotes tile coding, IHT denotes index hash table, and FC denotes a fully connected neural network.
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Notes
Shared (tabular/linear & deep)
Initial exploration
ε0
0.10
ε -greedy
Exploration decay
δε
0.985
Per-episode
Min. exploration
εmin
0.05
Tabular/linear only
Discount set
Γ
{0.70,0.80,0.90,0.97,0.99}
K=5 heads
Table 3: Default hyperparameters used in the experiments.
Environment
Method
γ∗
Early
Tail
AUC
Delayed-credit environments
MountainCar
Q( γH )
—
366.36
136.45
203.58
Q-Learning
0.97
402.42
136.16
217.12
SARSA
0.97
388.81
143.95
216.51
Exp. SARSA
0.97
401.04
139.79
218.13
Double Q
0.97
580.43
146.54
280.95
Table 4: Q( γH ) vs. oracle-tuned fixed- γ baselines. Values are means over 10 seeds. Steps ↓ except LunarLander return ↑ .
Figure 1: Mechanism analysis on MountainCar using the same 10 canonical training seeds. Left: normalised entropy decreases while γˉ increases; shaded bands denote 95% confidence intervals across seeds. Right: normalised entropy versus episode length across all seed–episode observations ( N=2,000 , Pearson r=0.306 ).
Method
CartPole-v1 ↑
Acrobot-v1 ↑
MountainCar-v0 ↑
AUC
Gain
AUC
Gain
AUC
Gain
Q( γ H)-DDQN
40,476
—
− 34,660
—
− 55,185
—
Q( γ H)-DQN
38,804
+4.3%
− 40,242
+13.9%
− 58,312
+5.4%∗
DDQN
38,084
+6.3%
− 37,900
+8.5%
− 59,314
+7.0%∗∗
DQN
26,851
+50.7%
− 35,634
+2.7%
− 59,112
+6.6%∗∗
Hyperbolic [ 4 ]
34,616
+16.9%
− 38,169
+9.2%∗∗
− 58,025
+4.9%∗
Table 5: Deep Q( γ H)-DDQN vs. all baselines (10 seeds, 300 episodes). AUC ↑ higher is better. Gain is computed as 100×(AUCQ(γH)−AUCbase)/∣AUCbase∣ ; positive values indicate that Q( γ H)-DDQN performs better. ∗p<0.05 , ∗∗p<0.01 , ∗∗∗p<0.001 (paired t -test, 10 seeds). Bold = best per column.
Figure 2: Learning curves on Acrobot-v1 (10 seeds, 300 episodes, shaded =95% CI, reward ↑ ). Q( γ H)-DDQN (solid blue) converges faster and achieves the best cumulative reward ( −34,660 ). It outperforms Scheduled- γ by 48.0% ( p<0.001 ), Ogawa-Adapt by 21.4% ( p<0.01 ), and DDQN by 8.5% . The annotation marks the gain over Scheduled- γ relative to the episode-wise peak gap. Since Acrobot assigns −1 per timestep, values closer to zero indicate faster task completion.
MountainCar
Acrobot
Signal dynamics (first 50 → last 50 episodes)
Mean head disagreement
15.53→27.77
1.03→8.15
Normalised entropy Hn
0.960→0.800
0.969→0.878
Discount summary γˉ
0.782→0.816
0.780→0.800
Pearson r (episode-wise, 200 episodes)
Disagreement →Hn
−0.883
−0.969
Table 6: Signal dynamics and correlations on delayed-credit tasks (10 seeds). Pearson r is computed episode-wise over 200 episodes.
Method
Type
Early ↓
Tail ↓
AUC ↓
γˉ
Hn
MaxMin linear
Aggregated
366.36
136.45
203.58
0.816
0.800
Mean Q
Aggregated
373.1
137.7
206.4
0.802
0.863
Max Q optimistic
Aggregated
370.7
138.9
206.8
0.789
0.926
Fixed middle
Fixed head
379.1
139.9
208.3
0.798
0.882
Fixed short
Fixed head
375.4
139.2
208.5
0.789
0.924
Min Q pessimistic
Aggregated
379.1
140.7
209.0
0.842
0.670
Table 7: Reference construction comparison on MountainCar (10 seeds, steps ↓ ). Final γˉ and Hn are means over the last 50 episodes.
Signal
Early ↓
Tail ↓
AUC ↓
γˉ first 50
γˉ last 50
Entropy
366.36
136.45
203.58
0.782
0.816
Variance
372.79
138.70
205.25
0.795
0.784
Disagreement
375.35
138.47
206.41
0.796
0.787
Table 8: Gating signal ablation on MountainCar (10 seeds, MaxMin linear reference, steps ↓ ). Best value per column in bold .
Seeds
Config
Early ↓
Tail ↓
AUC ↓
γˉ first/last 50
10
K=3
367.20
139.39
204.16
0.755 / 0.790
K=5
366.36
136.45
203.58
0.782 / 0.816
20
K=3
367.36
139.94
204.62
0.755 / 0.790
K=5
370.36
140.60
205.60
0.780 / 0.811
Table 9: Head count ablation on MountainCar (steps ↓ ), 10 and 20 seeds. Best value per column in bold .
Param
Value
Early ↓
Tail ↓
Default
Robust range
Sensitivity
β
3.0
366.36
136.45
3.0
[1.5,3.0]
Moderate
1.5
388.69
140.0
0.5
403.03
141.9
τ
0.25
366.36
136.45
0.25
[0.25,0.50]
Low
0.50
368.12
137.8
0.10
369.92
140.1
Table 10: Sensitivity analysis on MountainCar (10 seeds, steps ↓ ). Robust ranges are determined from the corresponding AUC results. Best value per block in bold .
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Effective decision-making in complex and changing environments requires balancing short-term and long-term consequences. In reinforcement learning (RL), this trade-off is typically controlled through a fixed discount factor, which imposes a single exponentially discounted temporal horizon. However, biological agents exhibit flexible and adaptive temporal discounting, suggesting that effective planning requires multiple timescales. Here, we propose a multi-horizon approach that adaptively selects and combines temporal horizons, enabling robust adaptation to changes in reward structure without manual discount-factor tuning. This flexibility makes the method particularly suitable for continual learning scenarios involving task switches and varying environmental configurations. Empirically, we demonstrate that our approach identifies effective discount factors across a range of MiniGrid environments, including continual settings composed of three sequentially changing tasks. These results suggest that adaptive temporal discounting can improve parameter efficiency and enhance adaptability in both artificial and biologically inspired learning systems.
Manoosh Samiei, Doina Precup, Paul Masset
Department of Computer Science, McGill University, Canada · 2Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute · Department of Psychology, McGill University, Canada
Multistep credit assignment is critical for sample-efficient reinforcement learning, yet managing off-policy bias in Q-learning remains a fundamental challenge. For 30 years, practitioners have been limited to a binary choice: eliminate the bias at the cost of severely truncated eligibility traces (Watkins' Q(λ)), or ignore the bias to learn faster while injecting detrimental errors into the value estimates (Peng's Q(λ)). Modern off-policy estimators fail to resolve this tension, as importance-sampling ratios collapse under Q-learning's greedy target policy. We introduce Gated Q-learning, a novel algorithmic framework that ends this dilemma by smoothly interpolating between the two historical extremes. Rather than relying on importance sampling, our approach employs a continuous, state-action-dependent gating mechanism to selectively attenuate eligibility traces in an exploration-aware manner. We provide a rigorous theoretical foundation for this mechanism, proving that the expected operator remains a contraction mapping and deriving its exact fixed point. Empirical evaluations verify that intermediate gating safely enables longer credit-assignment horizons, yielding faster initial learning than either extreme. Gated Q-learning offers a simple alternative to importance sampling while enabling customization of the effective multistep horizon and the amount of off-policy bias in Q-learning agents.
Off-policy, value-based reinforcement learning methods such as Q-learning are appealing because they can learn from arbitrary experience, including data collected by older policies or other agents. In practice, however, bootstrapping makes long-horizon learning brittle: estimation errors at later states propagate backward through temporal-difference (TD) updates and can compound over time. We propose long-horizon Q-learning (LQL), which introduces a principled backstop against compounding error when learning the optimal action-value function. LQL builds on a prior optimality tightening observation: any realized action sequence lower-bounds what the optimal policy can achieve in expectation, so acting optimally earlier should not be worse than following the observed actions for several steps before switching to optimal behavior. Our contribution is to turn this inequality into a practical stabilization mechanism for Q-learning by using a hinge loss to penalize violations of these bounds. Importantly, LQL computes these penalties using network outputs already produced for the TD error, requiring no auxiliary networks and no additional forward passes relative to Q-learning. When combined with multiple state-of-the-art methods on a range of online and offline-to-online benchmarks, LQL consistently outperforms both 1-step TD and n-step TD learning at similar runtime.
Armaan A. Abraham, Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Chelsea Finn