Approximate Modified Policy Iteration

Modified policy iteration (MPI) is a dynamic programming (DP) algorithm that contains the two celebrated policy and value iteration methods. Despite its generality, MPI has not been thoroughly studied, especially its approximation form which is used when the state and/or action spaces are large or infinite. In this paper, we propose three implementations of approximate MPI (AMPI) that are extensions of well-known approximate DP algorithms: fitted-value iteration, fitted-Q iteration, and classification-based policy iteration. We provide error propagation analyses that unify those for approximate policy and value iteration. On the last classification-based implementation, we develop a finite-sample analysis that shows that MPI's main parameter allows to control the balance between the estimation error of the classifier and the overall value function approximation

Conservative and Greedy Approaches to Classification-based Policy Iteration

International audienceThe existing classification-based policy iteration (CBPI) algorithms can be divided into two categories: {\em direct policy iteration} (DPI) methods that directly assign the output of the classifier (the approximate greedy policy w.r.t.~the current policy) to the next policy, and {\em conservative policy iteration} (CPI) methods in which the new policy is a mixture distribution of the current policy and the output of the classifier. The conservative policy update gives CPI a desirable feature, namely the guarantee that the policies generated by this algorithm improve at each iteration. We provide a detailed algorithmic and theoretical comparison of these two classes of CBPI algorithms. Our results reveal that in order to achieve the same level of accuracy, CPI requires more iterations, and thus, more samples than the DPI algorithm. Furthermore, CPI may converge to suboptimal policies whose performance is not better than DPI's

Approximate modified policy iteration and its application to the game of Tetris

International audienceModified policy iteration (MPI) is a dynamic programming (DP) algorithm that contains the two celebrated policy and value iteration methods. Despite its generality, MPI has not been thoroughly studied, especially its approximation form which is used when the state and/or action spaces are large or infinite. In this paper, we propose three implementations of approximate MPI (AMPI) that are extensions of the well-known approximate DP algorithms:~fitted-value iteration, fitted-Q iteration, and classification-based policy iteration. We provide error propagation analysis that unify those for approximate policy and value iteration. We develop the finite-sample analysis of these algorithms, which highlights the influence of their parameters. In the classification-based version of the algorithm (CBMPI), the analysis shows that MPI's main parameter controls the balance between the estimation error of the classifier and the overall value function approximation. We illustrate and evaluate the behavior of these new algorithms in the Mountain Car and Tetris problems. Remarkably, in Tetris, CBMPI outperforms the existing DP approaches by a large margin, and competes with the current state-of-the-art methods while using fewer samples

Analysis of Classification-based Policy Iteration Algorithms

International audienceWe introduce a variant of the classification-based approach to policy iteration which uses a cost-sensitive loss function weighting each classification mistake by its actual regret, that is, the difference between the action-value of the greedy action and of the action chosen by the classifier. For this algorithm, we provide a full finite-sample analysis. Our results state a performance bound in terms of the number of policy improvement steps, the number of rollouts used in each iteration, the capacity of the considered policy space (classifier), and a capacity measure which indicates how well the policy space can approximate policies that are greedy with respect to any of its members. The analysis reveals a tradeoff between the estimation and approximation errors in this classification-based policy iteration setting. Furthermore it confirms the intuition that classification-based policy iteration algorithms could be favorably compared to value-based approaches when the policies can be approximated more easily than their corresponding value functions. We also study the consistency of the algorithm when there exists a sequence of policy spaces with increasing capacity

Conservative and Greedy Approaches to Classification-based Policy Iteration

International audienceThe existing classification-based policy iteration (CBPI) algorithms can be divided into two categories: {\em direct policy iteration} (DPI) methods that directly assign the output of the classifier (the approximate greedy policy w.r.t.~the current policy) to the next policy, and {\em conservative policy iteration} (CPI) methods in which the new policy is a mixture distribution of the current policy and the output of the classifier. The conservative policy update gives CPI a desirable feature, namely the guarantee that the policies generated by this algorithm improve at each iteration. We provide a detailed algorithmic and theoretical comparison of these two classes of CBPI algorithms. Our results reveal that in order to achieve the same level of accuracy, CPI requires more iterations, and thus, more samples than the DPI algorithm. Furthermore, CPI may converge to suboptimal policies whose performance is not better than DPI's

Policy Search: Any Local Optimum Enjoys a Global Performance Guarantee

Local Policy Search is a popular reinforcement learning approach for handling large state spaces. Formally, it searches locally in a paramet erized policy space in order to maximize the associated value function averaged over some predefined distribution. It is probably commonly b elieved that the best one can hope in general from such an approach is to get a local optimum of this criterion. In this article, we show th e following surprising result: \emph{any} (approximate) \emph{local optimum} enjoys a \emph{global performance guarantee}. We compare this g uarantee with the one that is satisfied by Direct Policy Iteration, an approximate dynamic programming algorithm that does some form of Poli cy Search: if the approximation error of Local Policy Search may generally be bigger (because local search requires to consider a space of s tochastic policies), we argue that the concentrability coefficient that appears in the performance bound is much nicer. Finally, we discuss several practical and theoretical consequences of our analysis

Approximate Policy Iteration Schemes: A Comparison

We consider the infinite-horizon discounted optimal control problem formalized by Markov Decision Processes. We focus on several approximate variations of the Policy Iteration algorithm: Approximate Policy Iteration, Conservative Policy Iteration (CPI), a natural adaptation of the Policy Search by Dynamic Programming algorithm to the infinite-horizon case (PSDP$_\infty$), and the recently proposed Non-Stationary Policy iteration (NSPI(m)). For all algorithms, we describe performance bounds, and make a comparison by paying a particular attention to the concentrability constants involved, the number of iterations and the memory required. Our analysis highlights the following points: 1) The performance guarantee of CPI can be arbitrarily better than that of API/API($\alpha$), but this comes at the cost of a relative---exponential in $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$---increase of the number of iterations. 2) PSDP$_\infty$ enjoys the best of both worlds: its performance guarantee is similar to that of CPI, but within a number of iterations similar to that of API. 3) Contrary to API that requires a constant memory, the memory needed by CPI and PSDP$_\infty$ is proportional to their number of iterations, which may be problematic when the discount factor $\gamma$ is close to 1 or the approximation error $\epsilon$ is close to $0$; we show that the NSPI(m) algorithm allows to make an overall trade-off between memory and performance. Simulations with these schemes confirm our analysis.Comment: ICML (2014