Sign-Separated Asymmetric Finite-Time Error Analysis of Q-Learning
On the map: Deep reinforcement learning methods → RL theory and sample complexity
Abstract (arXiv)
Q-learning is known to suffer from overestimation bias: because the Bellman update maximizes noisy or imperfect action-value estimates, positive errors can be selected and propagated, causing learned values to exceed the true optimal values. This bias can slow learning, degrade policy quality, and make value estimates unreliable. Although the convergence of Q-learning has been studied extensively, convergence theory that explicitly reflects this overestimation mechanism remains limited. This paper studies the asymmetric convergence behavior of Q-learning induced by overestimation bias. We decompose the Q-learning error into its componentwise positive and negative parts and derive separate finite-time rates for the two components. The resulting certificates can assign a slower exponential envelope to the positive component than to the negative component. This rate separation provides indirect theoretical evidence for max-induced overestimation: positive errors can be amplified through the maximization step, whereas negative errors admit a sharper comparison with an optimal-policy system. The separation is a difference between upper bounds, so it need not hold for every realized Q-learning trajectory. Nevertheless, we construct examples in which the predicted asymmetry appears in the actual trajectory. The analysis gives deterministic and stochastic constant-step-size bounds and clarifies how overestimation enters the switching-system dynamics of Q-learning.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RL theory and sample complexity, one of 15 directions in Deep reinforcement learning methods. Builds on 7 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2026.
Builds on
7 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Switching Theory for Q-Learning21 Apr
Other references · 6
- 2020Finite-Time Analysis of Asynchronous Stochastic Approximation and Q-Learningcited by 96
- 2020Sample Complexity of Asynchronous Q-Learning: Sharper Analysis and Variance Reductioncited by 95
- 2019Stochastic approximation with cone-contractive operators: Sharp ℓ_∞-bounds for Q-learningcited by 77
- 2021A Discrete-Time Switching System Analysis of Q-learningcited by 16
- 2022Final Iteration Convergence Bound of Q-Learning: Switching System Approachcited by 9
- 2022Finite-Time Analysis of Asynchronous Q-learning under Diminishing Step-Size from Control-Theoretic Viewcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Hitting-Time Bounds for Asynchronous Q-Learningcited by 0
- 2026Hitting-Time Bounds for Asynchronous Q-Learning9 Oct 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Revisiting Overestimation Bias Problem of Q-learning: Settling Large Discrete Action Space via Action Intersection
- 2026Upper-Expectile Multi-Step Q-Learning for Off-Policy Reinforcement Learning
- 2023Understanding, Predicting and Better Resolving Q-Value Divergence in Offline-RL
- 2026Sharp asymptotic theory for Q-learning with LDTZ learning rate and its generalization
- 2026Long-Horizon Q-Learning: Accurate Value Learning via n-Step Inequalities
- 2024Constant Stepsize Q-learning: Distributional Convergence, Bias and Extrapolation
- 2024Finite-Time Analysis of Simultaneous Double Q-learning
- 2025Quantile Q-Learning: Revisiting Offline Extreme Q-Learning with Quantile Regression