Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Warm-up Free Policy Optimization: Improved Regret in Linear Markov Decision Processes

Asaf Cassel, Aviv Rosenberg

TL;DR

This work introduces Contracted Features Policy Optimization (CFPO), a contraction-based approach to policy optimization in linear MDPs that removes the need for reward-free warm-up phases. By defining contracted features and a contracted (sub) MDP, CFPO achieves rate-optimal regret in both adversarial full-information and stochastic bandit settings, with a bound of $O\left( \sqrt{K d^3 H^4 \log(K) \log(KH/\delta)} + \sqrt{K d H^5 \log(K) \log|\mathcal{A}|} \right)$. The analysis hinges on a novel regret decomposition and an elliptical-potential-based control of estimation errors under the contraction, yielding improved dependence on horizon $H$ and feature dimension $d$ relative to prior warm-up–dependent methods. The approach is practical, reward-aware, and computationally comparable to existing linear MDP PO algorithms, offering a meaningful advance for regret minimization under function approximation in RL.

Abstract

Policy Optimization (PO) methods are among the most popular Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms in practice. Recently, Sherman et al. [2023a] proposed a PO-based algorithm with rate-optimal regret guarantees under the linear Markov Decision Process (MDP) model. However, their algorithm relies on a costly pure exploration warm-up phase that is hard to implement in practice. This paper eliminates this undesired warm-up phase, replacing it with a simple and efficient contraction mechanism. Our PO algorithm achieves rate-optimal regret with improved dependence on the other parameters of the problem (horizon and function approximation dimension) in two fundamental settings: adversarial losses with full-information feedback and stochastic losses with bandit feedback.

Warm-up Free Policy Optimization: Improved Regret in Linear Markov Decision Processes

TL;DR

This work introduces Contracted Features Policy Optimization (CFPO), a contraction-based approach to policy optimization in linear MDPs that removes the need for reward-free warm-up phases. By defining contracted features and a contracted (sub) MDP, CFPO achieves rate-optimal regret in both adversarial full-information and stochastic bandit settings, with a bound of . The analysis hinges on a novel regret decomposition and an elliptical-potential-based control of estimation errors under the contraction, yielding improved dependence on horizon and feature dimension relative to prior warm-up–dependent methods. The approach is practical, reward-aware, and computationally comparable to existing linear MDP PO algorithms, offering a meaningful advance for regret minimization under function approximation in RL.

Abstract

Policy Optimization (PO) methods are among the most popular Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms in practice. Recently, Sherman et al. [2023a] proposed a PO-based algorithm with rate-optimal regret guarantees under the linear Markov Decision Process (MDP) model. However, their algorithm relies on a costly pure exploration warm-up phase that is hard to implement in practice. This paper eliminates this undesired warm-up phase, replacing it with a simple and efficient contraction mechanism. Our PO algorithm achieves rate-optimal regret with improved dependence on the other parameters of the problem (horizon and function approximation dimension) in two fundamental settings: adversarial losses with full-information feedback and stochastic losses with bandit feedback.
Paper Structure (34 sections, 25 theorems, 75 equations, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 34 sections, 25 theorems, 75 equations, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

theorem 1

Suppose that we run CFPO (alg:r-opo-for-linear-mdp-regular-bonus) with the parameters defined in thm:regret-bound-PO-linear-regular-bonus (in appendix-sec:analysis). Then, with probability at least $1 - \delta$, we have

Theorems & Definitions (40)

  • theorem 1
  • Lemma 2
  • Proof
  • Lemma 3
  • Proof
  • Lemma 4: Optimism
  • Proof
  • Lemma 5: Cost of optimism
  • Proof
  • Lemma 6: Good event
  • ...and 30 more