I was quite surprised to see this question migrated from AI Stack Exchange to Data Science:
There are two reasons that I am surprised:
In my opinion, Reinforcement Learning is not really a data science or statistics subject. Some of the toolkit is the same (mainly neural networks), but the resulting system is different.
In my opinion, the AI stack exchange is where I would expect to see practical discussions of agents that learn how to behave rationally in environments. This encompasses RL and other approaches to creating behaviours or policies, such as NEAT.
In fact I have just encouraged a recent poster with a practical RL question on Cross Validated (why is a Q learning on Towers of Hanoi not working) to post here . . . should I have done? Do we want that kind of question?
I would like to open a discussion:
What makes a question which is obviously about Reinforcement Learning on or off topic at AI Stack Exchange?
Are questions about implementing RL algorithms with code snippets on-topic here (assuming code problems are not trivial such as Python syntax errors)?
- The example question that was migrated to DataScience is in this category.
Are questions about theory of maths behind RL on topic here, such as understanding proof of the Policy Improvement Theory or deriving Policy Gradients?
- The maths of RL is easily as complex as anything discussed on CrossValidated. In fact Cross Validated already has many RL questions about these topics. Are they really statistics questions though - should they in fact be migrated here?
My personal opinion is that both kinds of questions should be on-topic here. In fact I am hard pushed to come up with an RL question which would not be on topic. That doesn't prevent some subset of RL questions being on-topic elsewhere too. But here is where I would expect them all to be on-topic. That is not to say that I would expect them all to remain open or get answers - some might be low quality or not answerable for other reasons.
But is my opinion out of step with others on the site? Have I made some incorrect assumption about the scope of this stack?