Before you can read a single formula in Double DQN and Dueling DQN, you need the alphabet. Every letter below is defined in plain words, drawn as a picture, and justified — why does the topic even need this symbol? Read top to bottom; each rung stands on the one before it.
Picture a single frame of a video game frozen on the screen. That frozen frame iss. Nothing about the future or the past — just "here is the world, right now".
Why the topic needs it: every value the agent learns is conditioned on a state. There is no "how good is this action" without first asking "in which situation?".
Why the topic needs it: Dueling DQN's whole trick is about how many buttons matter. The symbol ∣A∣ appears directly in its mean-centering formula (you divide by it), so you must be comfortable that it is just "count the buttons".
The vertical bars
They mean "size of" — ∣A∣ is the number of actions.
Picture a scoreboard that ticks up or down by one number each time you press a button. That tick is r.
Why the topic needs it:r is the only real, non-guessed quantity in every target formula. Everything else is an estimate; r is ground truth the environment gives us.
Why the shrinking? Two reasons. (1) The future is uncertain — a reward you might get in 50 steps is less trustworthy than one now. (2) The sum must stay a finite number even over infinitely many steps; multiplying by γ<1 each time makes it converge.
Why the topic needs it:γ sits right in front of the estimated future value in every target — y=r+γ(…). The entire "overestimation" disease lives inside that γ(…) term.
Why the topic needs it: Double DQN worries that these Q numbers come out too big. Dueling DQN worries that we store them wastefully. You cannot understand either fix without knowing Q is "the score of a (situation, choice) pair."
Why the topic needs it: every formula tags Q with a subscript — Qθ or Qθ− — and those subscripts are the entire point of Double DQN. If you don't read θ as "which set of dials", the fix looks like meaningless decoration.
Why the topic needs it: Double DQN's slogan is literally "select with θ, evaluate with θ−". Two symbols, two networks. If θ− is a mystery, the cure is a mystery.
This is the single most confused pair in the whole topic, so we separate them slowly.
Why the topic needs it — and why the split matters: plain DQN does maxaQθ−: it uses one network to both pick the winner and read its value. Double DQN carefully separates the two: argmax (pick) with θ, then read the value with θ−. You literally cannot state the fix unless you know that argmax gives an action and max gives a value. This is the crux of the whole page — see Overestimation Bias in Q-learning.
Why the topic needs it: the key inequality E[maxaεa]≥0 is what proves DQN is an optimist. It's an average-of-noise statement, pure and simple.
The picture above is the whole disease in one image: each guess is truth-plus-noise, and picking the maximum systematically grabs whichever one got lucky — so the max floats above the true value.
Why the topic needs it: Dueling DQN builds two separate streams — one computes V, one computes A — and glues them back with Q=V+(A−mean A). Without knowing V is "state goodness" and A is "edge over average", that formula is gibberish.