Non-stationary approximate modified policy iteration

International audienceWe consider the infinite-horizon γ-discounted optimal control problem formalized by Markov Decision Processes. Running any instance of Modified Policy Iteration—a family of algorithms that can interpolate between Value and Policy Iteration—with an error at each iteration is known to lead to stationary policies that are at least 2γ/(1−γ)^2-optimal. Variations of Value and Policy Iteration, that build l-periodic non-stationary policies, have recently been shown to display a better 2γ/((1−γ)(1−γ^l))-optimality guarantee. We describe a new algorithmic scheme, Non-Stationary Modified Policy Iteration, a family of algorithms parameterized by two integers m ≥ 0 and l ≥ 1 that generalizes all the above mentionned algorithms. While m allows one to interpolate between Value-Iteration-style and Policy-Iteration-style updates, l specifies the period of the non-stationary policy that is output. We show that this new family of algorithms also enjoys the improved 2γ/((1−γ)(1−γ))-optimality guarantee. Perhaps more importantly, we show, by exhibiting an original problem instance, that this guarantee is tight for all m and l; this tightness was to our knowledge only known in two specific cases, Value Iteration (m = 0, l = 1) and Policy Iteration (m = ∞, l = 1)

Tight Performance Bounds for Approximate Modified Policy Iteration with Non-Stationary Policies

We consider approximate dynamic programming for the infinite-horizon stationary $\gamma$-discounted optimal control problem formalized by Markov Decision Processes. While in the exact case it is known that there always exists an optimal policy that is stationary, we show that when using value function approximation, looking for a non-stationary policy may lead to a better performance guarantee. We define a non-stationary variant of MPI that unifies a broad family of approximate DP algorithms of the literature. For this algorithm we provide an error propagation analysis in the form of a performance bound of the resulting policies that can improve the usual performance bound by a factor $O(1-\gamma)$, which is significant when the discount factor $\gamma$ is close to 1. Doing so, our approach unifies recent results for Value and Policy Iteration. Furthermore, we show, by constructing a specific deterministic MDP, that our performance guarantee is tight

On the Performance Bounds of some Policy Search Dynamic Programming Algorithms

We consider the infinite-horizon discounted optimal control problem formalized by Markov Decision Processes. We focus on Policy Search algorithms, that compute an approximately optimal policy by following the standard Policy Iteration (PI) scheme via an -approximate greedy operator (Kakade and Langford, 2002; Lazaric et al., 2010). We describe existing and a few new performance bounds for Direct Policy Iteration (DPI) (Lagoudakis and Parr, 2003; Fern et al., 2006; Lazaric et al., 2010) and Conservative Policy Iteration (CPI) (Kakade and Langford, 2002). By paying a particular attention to the concentrability constants involved in such guarantees, we notably argue that the guarantee of CPI is much better than that of DPI, but this comes at the cost of a relative--exponential in $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$-- increase of time complexity. We then describe an algorithm, Non-Stationary Direct Policy Iteration (NSDPI), that can either be seen as 1) a variation of Policy Search by Dynamic Programming by Bagnell et al. (2003) to the infinite horizon situation or 2) a simplified version of the Non-Stationary PI with growing period of Scherrer and Lesner (2012). We provide an analysis of this algorithm, that shows in particular that it enjoys the best of both worlds: its performance guarantee is similar to that of CPI, but within a time complexity similar to that of DPI

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

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

The Stochastic Shortest Path Problem : A polyhedral combinatorics perspective

In this paper, we give a new framework for the stochastic shortest path problem in finite state and action spaces. Our framework generalizes both the frameworks proposed by Bertsekas and Tsitsikli and by Bertsekas and Yu. We prove that the problem is well-defined and (weakly) polynomial when (i) there is a way to reach the target state from any initial state and (ii) there is no transition cycle of negative costs (a generalization of negative cost cycles). These assumptions generalize the standard assumptions for the deterministic shortest path problem and our framework encapsulates the latter problem (in contrast with prior works). In this new setting, we can show that (a) one can restrict to deterministic and stationary policies, (b) the problem is still (weakly) polynomial through linear programming, (c) Value Iteration and Policy Iteration converge, and (d) we can extend Dijkstra's algorithm

Beyond the One Step Greedy Approach in Reinforcement Learning

The famous Policy Iteration algorithm alternates between policy improvement and policy evaluation. Implementations of this algorithm with several variants of the latter evaluation stage, e.g, $n$-step and trace-based returns, have been analyzed in previous works. However, the case of multiple-step lookahead policy improvement, despite the recent increase in empirical evidence of its strength, has to our knowledge not been carefully analyzed yet. In this work, we introduce the first such analysis. Namely, we formulate variants of multiple-step policy improvement, derive new algorithms using these definitions and prove their convergence. Moreover, we show that recent prominent Reinforcement Learning algorithms are, in fact, instances of our framework. We thus shed light on their empirical success and give a recipe for deriving new algorithms for future study.Comment: ICML 201