Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
157 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
43 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Thompson Sampling for Infinite-Horizon Discounted Decision Processes (2405.08253v2)

Published 14 May 2024 in stat.ML, cs.LG, and math.OC

Abstract: We model a Markov decision process, parametrized by an unknown parameter, and study the asymptotic behavior of a sampling-based algorithm, called Thompson sampling. The standard definition of regret is not always suitable to evaluate a policy, especially when the underlying chain structure is general. We show that the standard (expected) regret can grow (super-)linearly and fails to capture the notion of learning in realistic settings with non-trivial state evolution. By decomposing the standard (expected) regret, we develop a new metric, called the expected residual regret, which forgets the immutable consequences of past actions. Instead, it measures regret against the optimal reward moving forward from the current period. We show that the expected residual regret of the Thompson sampling algorithm is upper bounded by a term which converges exponentially fast to 0. We present conditions under which the posterior sampling error of Thompson sampling converges to 0 almost surely. We then introduce the probabilistic version of the expected residual regret and present conditions under which it converges to 0 almost surely. Thus, we provide a viable concept of learning for sampling algorithms which will serve useful in broader settings than had been considered previously.

Summary

  • The paper introduces expected residual regret as a novel metric by decomposing standard regret into finite-time, state, and residual components.
  • It shows through numerical results that Thompson Sampling achieves an exponential decay in residual regret in complex discounted MDPs.
  • The findings bridge theory and practice, establishing asymptotic discount optimality for adaptive learning in uncertain decision processes.

Understanding Expected Residual Regret in Thompson Sampling: A Deep Dive into Markov Decision Processes

Introduction

In this article, we'll explore a paper that introduces an innovative metric called Expected Residual Regret in the context of Thompson Sampling (TS) applied to Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). While traditional measures of regret often assume specific and simplistic settings, this paper steps into the field of more complex and realistic scenarios. The authors argue that under these conditions, the standard expected regret can yield misleading evaluations.

Their work proposes decomposing the standard regret into more insightful components and introduces the residual regret as a critical metric in adaptive learning. We're going to break down these concepts, discuss their implications, and anticipate future developments in the AI field.

Markov Decision Processes and Thompson Sampling

The problem at hand is a classical scenario in control theory and reinforcement learning: a decision-maker (DM) must interact with an environment modeled as a discrete-time MDP. This environment is characterized by unknown parameters that influence state transitions and rewards. The goal is to optimize cumulative rewards over time, while balancing the exploration of unknown parameters with the exploitation of known, rewarding strategies.

Thompson Sampling is a popular approach for parameter estimation and decision-making. It works by maintaining a probability distribution (belief) over the unknown parameter, updating this belief based on observed outcomes, and sampling from it to make decisions. The challenge is that in more complex MDPs, the standard notion of regret fails to adequately measure learning performance.

Regret Decomposition

The standard regret in an MDP is usually defined as the difference between the cumulative reward of an omniscient agent (one that knows the optimal policy) and the cumulative reward of the DM. However, this can grow super-linearly in more intricate MDPs, failing to reflect actual learning progress. To address this, the authors decompose the standard regret into three components:

  1. Expected Finite-Time Regret: The regret accrued up to a specific time period.
  2. Expected State Regret: The future consequences of being in a suboptimal state due to past actions.
  3. Expected Residual Regret: The actionable regret from the current period moving forward, ignoring past mistakes that cannot be changed.

Expected Residual Regret

The crux of this paper is the introduction of the Expected Residual Regret. This metric only considers what can be optimized from the current state onward. It measures how the best possible future reward under an optimal policy compares to the reward under the current, potentially suboptimal, policy.

The paper demonstrates that the expected residual regret of the TS algorithm diminishes exponentially fast to zero under certain conditions. This indicates that the longer the TS algorithm runs, the closer its performance will get to the performance of the optimal policy.

Numerical Results

The paper provides illustrative examples showing the evolution of the posterior belief about the true parameter and the decline of expected residual regret. These examples demonstrate how, over time, TS learns the true underlying parameter, resulting in the reduction of residual regret.

Theoretical Implications

From a theoretical standpoint, the paper connects the expected residual regret to a concept called Asymptotic Discount Optimality (ADO). In essence, it shows that the TS algorithm, under their framework, possesses the property of vanishing expected residual regret, aligning with the ADO concept. This connection provides rigor and clarity to the concept of learning in MDPs with TS.

Practical Implications and Future Directions

Understanding and applying residual regret can greatly enhance decision-making in complex environments where traditional regret metrics fall short. This could benefit numerous fields such as robotics, adaptive control systems, and autonomous systems where decision policies must adapt and optimize over time in uncertain scenarios.

Future research might extend these results to even broader settings, including different types of state and control spaces, or employing other exploration strategies. Moreover, practical implementations could focus on ways to efficiently compute these regret metrics in real-time systems.

Conclusion

The paper provides significant insights into measuring the efficacy of learning algorithms like Thompson Sampling in MDPs with unknown parameters. By decomposing the traditional regret and focusing on expected residual regret, it offers a more nuanced and actionable metric that better captures the learning dynamics over time. As AI continues to evolve, such metrics will become increasingly important for developing robust and adaptive systems in complex environments.

By considering these advanced methods, data scientists and AI researchers can better analyze and improve the performance of adaptive learning algorithms, leading to more intelligent and effective decision-making processes.