# Stable Baselines3 Algorithm Reference

This document provides detailed characteristics of all RL algorithms in Stable Baselines3 to help select the right algorithm for specific tasks.

## Algorithm Comparison Table

| Algorithm | Type | Action Space | Sample Efficiency | Training Speed | Use Case |
|-----------|------|--------------|-------------------|----------------|----------|
| **PPO** | On-Policy | All | Medium | Fast | General-purpose, stable |
| **A2C** | On-Policy | All | Low | Very Fast | Quick prototyping, multiprocessing |
| **SAC** | Off-Policy | Continuous | High | Medium | Continuous control, sample-efficient |
| **TD3** | Off-Policy | Continuous | High | Medium | Continuous control, deterministic |
| **DDPG** | Off-Policy | Continuous | High | Medium | Continuous control (use TD3 instead) |
| **DQN** | Off-Policy | Discrete | Medium | Medium | Discrete actions, Atari games |
| **HER** | Off-Policy | All | Very High | Medium | Goal-conditioned tasks |
| **RecurrentPPO** | On-Policy | All | Medium | Slow | Partial observability (POMDP) |

## Detailed Algorithm Characteristics

### PPO (Proximal Policy Optimization)

**Overview:** General-purpose on-policy algorithm with good performance across many tasks.

**Strengths:**
- Stable and reliable training
- Works with all action space types (Discrete, Box, MultiDiscrete, MultiBinary)
- Good balance between sample efficiency and training speed
- Excellent for multiprocessing with vectorized environments
- Easy to tune

**Weaknesses:**
- Less sample-efficient than off-policy methods
- Requires many environment interactions

**Best For:**
- General-purpose RL tasks
- When stability is important
- When you have cheap environment simulations
- Tasks with continuous or discrete actions

**Hyperparameter Guidance:**
- `n_steps`: 2048-4096 for continuous, 128-256 for Atari
- `learning_rate`: 3e-4 is a good default
- `n_epochs`: 10 for continuous, 4 for Atari
- `batch_size`: 64
- `gamma`: 0.99 (0.995-0.999 for long episodes)

### A2C (Advantage Actor-Critic)

**Overview:** Synchronous variant of A3C, simpler than PPO but less stable.

**Strengths:**
- Very fast training (simpler than PPO)
- Works with all action space types
- Good for quick prototyping
- Memory efficient

**Weaknesses:**
- Less stable than PPO
- Requires careful hyperparameter tuning
- Lower sample efficiency

**Best For:**
- Quick experimentation
- When training speed is critical
- Simple environments

**Hyperparameter Guidance:**
- `n_steps`: 5-256 depending on task
- `learning_rate`: 7e-4
- `gamma`: 0.99

### SAC (Soft Actor-Critic)

**Overview:** Off-policy algorithm with entropy regularization, state-of-the-art for continuous control.

**Strengths:**
- Excellent sample efficiency
- Very stable training
- Automatic entropy tuning
- Good exploration through stochastic policy
- State-of-the-art for robotics

**Weaknesses:**
- Only supports continuous action spaces (Box)
- Slower wall-clock time than on-policy methods
- More complex hyperparameters

**Best For:**
- Continuous control (robotics, physics simulations)
- When sample efficiency is critical
- Expensive environment simulations
- Tasks requiring good exploration

**Hyperparameter Guidance:**
- `learning_rate`: 3e-4
- `buffer_size`: 1M for most tasks
- `learning_starts`: 10000
- `batch_size`: 256
- `tau`: 0.005 (target network update rate)
- `train_freq`: 1 with `gradient_steps=-1` for best performance

### TD3 (Twin Delayed DDPG)

**Overview:** Improved DDPG with double Q-learning and delayed policy updates.

**Strengths:**
- High sample efficiency
- Deterministic policy (good for deployment)
- More stable than DDPG
- Good for continuous control

**Weaknesses:**
- Only supports continuous action spaces (Box)
- Less exploration than SAC
- Requires careful tuning

**Best For:**
- Continuous control tasks
- When deterministic policies are preferred
- Sample-efficient learning

**Hyperparameter Guidance:**
- `learning_rate`: 1e-3
- `buffer_size`: 1M
- `learning_starts`: 10000
- `batch_size`: 100
- `policy_delay`: 2 (update policy every 2 critic updates)

### DDPG (Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient)

**Overview:** Early off-policy continuous control algorithm.

**Strengths:**
- Continuous action space support
- Off-policy learning

**Weaknesses:**
- Less stable than TD3 or SAC
- Sensitive to hyperparameters
- Generally outperformed by TD3

**Best For:**
- Legacy compatibility
- **Recommendation:** Use TD3 instead for new projects

### DQN (Deep Q-Network)

**Overview:** Classic off-policy algorithm for discrete action spaces.

**Strengths:**
- Sample-efficient for discrete actions
- Experience replay enables reuse of past data
- Proven success on Atari games

**Weaknesses:**
- Only supports discrete action spaces
- Can be unstable without proper tuning
- Overestimation bias

**Best For:**
- Discrete action tasks
- Atari games and similar environments
- When sample efficiency matters

**Hyperparameter Guidance:**
- `learning_rate`: 1e-4
- `buffer_size`: 100K-1M depending on task
- `learning_starts`: 50000 for Atari
- `batch_size`: 32
- `exploration_fraction`: 0.1
- `exploration_final_eps`: 0.05

**Variants:**
- **QR-DQN**: Distributional RL version for better value estimates
- **Maskable DQN**: For environments with action masking

### HER (Hindsight Experience Replay)

**Overview:** Not a standalone algorithm but a replay buffer strategy for goal-conditioned tasks.

**Strengths:**
- Dramatically improves learning in sparse reward settings
- Learns from failures by relabeling goals
- Works with any off-policy algorithm (SAC, TD3, DQN)

**Weaknesses:**
- Only for goal-conditioned environments
- Requires specific observation structure (Dict with "observation", "achieved_goal", "desired_goal")

**Best For:**
- Goal-conditioned tasks (robotics manipulation, navigation)
- Sparse reward environments
- Tasks where goal is clear but reward is binary

**Usage:**
```python
from stable_baselines3 import SAC, HerReplayBuffer

model = SAC(
    "MultiInputPolicy",
    env,
    replay_buffer_class=HerReplayBuffer,
    replay_buffer_kwargs=dict(
        n_sampled_goal=4,
        goal_selection_strategy="future",  # or "episode", "final"
    ),
)
```

### RecurrentPPO

**Overview:** PPO with LSTM policy for handling partial observability.

**Strengths:**
- Handles partial observability (POMDP)
- Can learn temporal dependencies
- Good for memory-required tasks

**Weaknesses:**
- Slower training than standard PPO
- More complex to tune
- Requires sequential data

**Best For:**
- Partially observable environments
- Tasks requiring memory (e.g., navigation without full map)
- Time-series problems

## Algorithm Selection Guide

### Decision Tree

1. **What is your action space?**
   - **Continuous (Box)** → Consider PPO, SAC, or TD3
   - **Discrete** → Consider PPO, A2C, or DQN
   - **MultiDiscrete/MultiBinary** → Use PPO or A2C

2. **Is sample efficiency critical?**
   - **Yes (expensive simulations)** → Use off-policy: SAC, TD3, DQN, or HER
   - **No (cheap simulations)** → Use on-policy: PPO, A2C

3. **Do you need fast wall-clock training?**
   - **Yes** → Use PPO or A2C with vectorized environments
   - **No** → Any algorithm works

4. **Is the task goal-conditioned with sparse rewards?**
   - **Yes** → Use HER with SAC or TD3
   - **No** → Continue with standard algorithms

5. **Is the environment partially observable?**
   - **Yes** → Use RecurrentPPO
   - **No** → Use standard algorithms

### Quick Recommendations

- **Starting out / General tasks:** PPO
- **Continuous control / Robotics:** SAC
- **Discrete actions / Atari:** DQN or PPO
- **Goal-conditioned / Sparse rewards:** SAC + HER
- **Fast prototyping:** A2C
- **Sample efficiency critical:** SAC, TD3, or DQN
- **Partial observability:** RecurrentPPO

## Training Configuration Tips

### For On-Policy Algorithms (PPO, A2C)

```python
# Use vectorized environments for speed
env = make_vec_env(env_id, n_envs=8, vec_env_cls=SubprocVecEnv)

model = PPO(
    "MlpPolicy",
    env,
    n_steps=2048,  # Collect this many steps per environment before update
    batch_size=64,
    n_epochs=10,
    learning_rate=3e-4,
    gamma=0.99,
)
```

### For Off-Policy Algorithms (SAC, TD3, DQN)

```python
# Fewer environments, but use gradient_steps=-1 for efficiency
env = make_vec_env(env_id, n_envs=4)

model = SAC(
    "MlpPolicy",
    env,
    buffer_size=1_000_000,
    learning_starts=10000,
    batch_size=256,
    train_freq=1,
    gradient_steps=-1,  # Do 1 gradient step per env step (4 with 4 envs)
    learning_rate=3e-4,
)
```

## Common Pitfalls

1. **Using DQN with continuous actions** - DQN only works with discrete actions
2. **Not using vectorized environments with PPO/A2C** - Wastes potential speedup
3. **Using too few environments** - On-policy methods need many samples
4. **Using too large replay buffer** - Can cause memory issues
5. **Not tuning learning rate** - Critical for stable training
6. **Ignoring reward scaling** - Normalize rewards for better learning
7. **Wrong policy type** - Use "CnnPolicy" for images, "MultiInputPolicy" for dict observations

## Performance Benchmarks

Approximate expected performance (mean reward) on common benchmarks:

### Continuous Control (MuJoCo)
- **HalfCheetah-v3**: PPO ~1800, SAC ~12000, TD3 ~9500
- **Hopper-v3**: PPO ~2500, SAC ~3600, TD3 ~3600
- **Walker2d-v3**: PPO ~3000, SAC ~5500, TD3 ~5000

### Discrete Control (Atari)
- **Breakout**: PPO ~400, DQN ~300
- **Pong**: PPO ~20, DQN ~20
- **Space Invaders**: PPO ~1000, DQN ~800

*Note: Performance varies significantly with hyperparameters and training time.*

## Additional Resources

- **RL Baselines3 Zoo**: Collection of pre-trained agents and hyperparameters: https://github.com/DLR-RM/rl-baselines3-zoo
- **Hyperparameter Tuning**: Use Optuna for systematic tuning
- **Custom Policies**: Extend base policies for custom network architectures
- **Contribution Repo**: SB3-Contrib for experimental algorithms (QR-DQN, TQC, etc.)