While Double DQN tackles the overestimation bias in Q-values, another approach to improve DQN performance focuses on the structure of the neural network itself. Think about the Q-value, $Q(s, a)$ . It implicitly contains two pieces of information: how good it is to be in state $s$ overall (the state value, $V(s)$ ), and how much better taking action $a$ is compared to other actions in that state (the action advantage, $A(s, a)$ ).

In many situations, the value of the state $V(s)$ might not depend strongly on the specific action taken. For instance, in a driving scenario, if there's an unavoidable obstacle far ahead, the value of the current state (potentially low) is largely determined by the obstacle itself, regardless of whether you slightly steer left or right right now. Conversely, when immediate action is critical (like dodging a sudden pothole), the advantage of one action over others becomes paramount.

The Dueling Network Architecture explicitly recognizes this separation. Instead of having a single network output stream that directly computes $Q(s, a)$ for all actions, it splits the computation into two pathways or "streams" after some initial shared layers:

Value Stream: Outputs a single scalar value, which is an estimate of the state value function, $V(s)$ .
Advantage Stream: Outputs a vector with dimensions equal to the number of actions, where each element estimates the advantage function, $A(s, a)$ , for a specific action $a$ .

These two streams are then combined to produce the final Q-value estimates for each action.

Combining Value and Advantage

Recall the relationship between Q-values, state values, and advantages:

Q(s, a) = V(s) + A(s, a)

This equation tells us that the value of taking action $a$ in state $s$ is the overall value of being in state $s$ , plus the additional value (or advantage) conferred by choosing action $a$ .

The Dueling Network aims to learn $V(s)$ and $A(s, a)$ separately and then combine them. However, there's a subtlety: given only the target Q-values from our Bellman updates, we cannot uniquely recover both $V(s)$ and $A(s, a)$ . Why? Because we could add a constant $C$ to $V(s)$ and subtract the same constant $C$ from all $A(s, a)$ values, and the resulting $Q(s, a)$ would remain unchanged:

Q(s, a) = (V(s) + C) + (A(s, a) - C) = V(s) + A(s, a)

This is known as an identifiability problem. Without a constraint, the network might learn, for example, a very high $V(s)$ and correspondingly low (negative) $A(s, a)$ values, or vice-versa, making the individual estimates of $V$ and $A$ potentially unstable or difficult to interpret.

Stabilizing the Combination

To resolve the identifiability issue and stabilize learning, we need to impose a constraint on the advantage stream. A common and effective approach is to force the average advantage across all actions to be zero. This means the advantages represent deviations from the state value. The combination formula becomes:

Q(s, a) = V(s) + \left( A(s, a) - \frac{1}{|\mathcal{A}|} \sum_{a' \in \mathcal{A}} A(s, a') \right)

Here, $|\mathcal{A}|$ is the number of possible actions. By subtracting the mean advantage, we ensure that the advantages sum to zero, effectively anchoring the scale between $V(s)$ and $A(s, a)$ . This makes $V(s)$ a more direct estimate of the actual state value, and $A(s, a)$ represents the relative preference for each action.

Another approach sometimes used replaces the average with the maximum advantage:

Q(s, a) = V(s) + \left( A(s, a) - \max_{a' \in \mathcal{A}} A(s, a') \right)

This forces the advantage of the best action to be zero, and all other actions have non-positive advantages. The mean-subtraction method is generally preferred as it tends to increase stability.

The diagram below illustrates the flow within a Dueling Network architecture.

Structure of a Dueling Network. Input state features pass through shared layers before splitting into separate streams for estimating state value $V(s)$ and action advantages $A(s, a)$ . These are then combined using a special aggregation layer to produce the final Q-values.

Why Use a Dueling Architecture?

Separating the value and advantage estimation provides several benefits:

Improved Learning Efficiency: The network can learn the state value $V(s)$ more effectively, even if the advantages $A(s, a)$ for many actions in that state are small or irrelevant. The value stream's gradients update $V(s)$ directly without being diluted across all action outputs. This is particularly helpful in states where many actions lead to similar next states and rewards in the short term.
Better Generalization: By learning state values independently of action effects, the network might generalize better. It gains a clearer understanding of which states are inherently good or bad.
Focus on Action Relevance: The advantage stream learns to focus specifically on the relative importance of different actions when it matters most.

Like Double DQN, the Dueling Network architecture is often combined with other DQN improvements such as Prioritized Experience Replay. This combination, often referred to as "Dueling DDQN," leverages the benefits of both reduced overestimation bias and the more efficient network structure, leading to state-of-the-art performance on many benchmark tasks.

In summary, the Dueling Network Architecture offers a refined way to structure the Q-value estimation process. By separating state values ( $V(s)$ ) from action advantages ( $A(s, a)$ ) and carefully recombining them, it allows the network to learn more efficiently and often leads to better policy performance compared to the standard DQN architecture.