REVIEW 1 cited by
On Optimistic versus Randomized Exploration in Reinforcement Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We discuss the relative merits of optimistic and randomized approaches to exploration in reinforcement learning. Optimistic approaches presented in the literature apply an optimistic boost to the value estimate at each state-action pair and select actions that are greedy with respect to the resulting optimistic value function. Randomized approaches sample from among statistically plausible value functions and select actions that are greedy with respect to the random sample. Prior computational experience suggests that randomized approaches can lead to far more statistically efficient learning. We present two simple analytic examples that elucidate why this is the case. In principle, there should be optimistic approaches that fare well relative to randomized approaches, but that would require intractable computation. Optimistic approaches that have been proposed in the literature sacrifice statistical efficiency for the sake of computational efficiency. Randomized approaches, on the other hand, may enable simultaneous statistical and computational efficiency.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Concurrent Learning with Aggregated States via Randomized Least Squares Value Iteration
Concurrent RLSVI with aggregated states is shown to have worst-case regret O~(K H^(5/2) Γ √N) and per-agent regret 1/√N, with an analogous infinite-horizon bound.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.