Papers › Demystifying the Recency Heuristic in Temporal-Difference Learning

Demystifying the Recency Heuristic in Temporal-Difference Learning

18 Jun 2024arXiv:2406.12284archive 2025-07-28

Brett Daley, Marlos C. Machado, Martha White

The recency heuristic in reinforcement learning is the assumption that stimuli that occurred closer in time to an acquired reward should be more heavily reinforced. The recency heuristic is one of the key assumptions made by TD(λ), which reinforces recent experiences according to an exponentially decaying weighting. In fact, all other widely used return estimators for TD learning, such as n-step returns, satisfy a weaker (i.e., non-monotonic) recency heuristic. Why is the recency heuristic effective for temporal credit assignment? What happens when credit is assigned in a way that violates this heuristic? In this paper, we analyze the specific mathematical implications of adopting the recency heuristic in TD learning. We prove that any return estimator satisfying this heuristic: 1) is guaranteed to converge to the correct value function, 2) has a relatively fast contraction rate, and 3) has a long window of effective credit assignment, yet bounded worst-case variance. We also give a counterexample where on-policy, tabular TD methods violating the recency heuristic diverge. Our results offer some of the first theoretical evidence that credit assignment based on the recency heuristic facilitates learning.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

10 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 10 of the 10 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from brett-daley/recency-heuristic. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections