A Dantzig Selector Approach to Temporal Difference Learning

LSTD is a popular algorithm for value function approximation. Whenever the number of features is larger than the number of samples, it must be paired with some form of regularization. In particular, L1-regularization methods tend to perform feature selection by promoting sparsity, and thus, are well-suited for high-dimensional problems. However, since LSTD is not a simple regression algorithm, but it solves a fixed--point problem, its integration with L1-regularization is not straightforward and might come with some drawbacks (e.g., the P-matrix assumption for LASSO-TD). In this paper, we introduce a novel algorithm obtained by integrating LSTD with the Dantzig Selector. We investigate the performance of the proposed algorithm and its relationship with the existing regularized approaches, and show how it addresses some of their drawbacks.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2012

A Theory of Regularized Markov Decision Processes

Many recent successful (deep) reinforcement learning algorithms make use of regularization, generally based on entropy or Kullback-Leibler divergence. We propose a general theory of regularized Markov Decision Processes that generalizes these approaches in two directions: we consider a larger class of regularizers, and we consider the general modified policy iteration approach, encompassing both policy iteration and value iteration. The core building blocks of this theory are a notion of regularized Bellman operator and the Legendre-Fenchel transform, a classical tool of convex optimization. This approach allows for error propagation analyses of general algorithmic schemes of which (possibly variants of) classical algorithms such as Trust Region Policy Optimization, Soft Q-learning, Stochastic Actor Critic or Dynamic Policy Programming are special cases. This also draws connections to proximal convex optimization, especially to Mirror Descent.Comment: ICML 201

When Waiting is not an Option : Learning Options with a Deliberation Cost

Recent work has shown that temporally extended actions (options) can be learned fully end-to-end as opposed to being specified in advance. While the problem of "how" to learn options is increasingly well understood, the question of "what" good options should be has remained elusive. We formulate our answer to what "good" options should be in the bounded rationality framework (Simon, 1957) through the notion of deliberation cost. We then derive practical gradient-based learning algorithms to implement this objective. Our results in the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE) show increased performance and interpretability