# Learning to Select Goals in Automated Planning with Deep-Q Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14779 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14779/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Deep RL algorithms and representations, one of 15 directions in Deep reinforcement learning methods.
- Builds on 9 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2024.

## Placed in

- Deep reinforcement learning methods / [Deep RL algorithms and representations](https://mlsanity.com/deeprl/deep-rl-algorithms-and-representations/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.5602/) (2013)
- [Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06461/) (2015)
- [Prioritized Experience Replay](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.05952/) (2015)
- [A Study on Overfitting in Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06893/) (2018)
- [Value Iteration Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.02867/) (2016)
- [The LAMA Planner: Guiding Cost-Based Anytime Planning with Landmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1401.3839/) (2014)
- [Action Schema Networks: Generalised Policies with Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.04271/) (2017)
- [Deep Reinforcement Learning for General Video Game AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.02448/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this work we propose a planning and acting architecture endowed with a module which learns to select subgoals with Deep Q-Learning. This allows us to decrease the load of a planner when faced with scenarios with real-time restrictions. We have trained this architecture on a video game environment used as a standard test-bed for intelligent systems applications, testing it on different levels of the same game to evaluate its generalization abilities. We have measured the performance of our approach as more training data is made available, as well as compared it with both a state-of-the-art, classical planner and the standard Deep Q-Learning algorithm. The results obtained show our model performs better than the alternative methods considered, when both plan quality (plan length) and time requirements are taken into account. On the one hand, it is more sample-efficient than standard Deep Q-Learning, and it is able to generalize better across levels. On the other hand, it reduces problem-solving time when compared with a state-of-the-art automated planner, at the expense of obtaining plans with only 9% more actions.