Alex Ayoub

Zichen Zhang, Johannes Kirschner, Junxi Zhang et al.

A default assumption in reinforcement learning (RL) and optimal control is that observations arrive at discrete time points on a fixed clock cycle. Yet, many applications involve continuous-time systems where the time discretization, in principle, can be managed. The impact of time discretization on RL methods has not been fully characterized in existing theory, but a more detailed analysis of its effect could reveal opportunities for improving data-efficiency. We address this gap by analyzing Monte-Carlo policy evaluation for LQR systems and uncover a fundamental trade-off between approximation and statistical error in value estimation. Importantly, these two errors behave differently to time discretization, leading to an optimal choice of temporal resolution for a given data budget. These findings show that managing the temporal resolution can provably improve policy evaluation efficiency in LQR systems with finite data. Empirically, we demonstrate the trade-off in numerical simulations of LQR instances and standard RL benchmarks for non-linear continuous control.

David Janz, Shuai Liu, Alex Ayoub et al.

We introduce exploration via linear loss perturbations (EVILL), a randomised exploration method for structured stochastic bandit problems that works by solving for the minimiser of a linearly perturbed regularised negative log-likelihood function. We show that, for the case of generalised linear bandits, EVILL reduces to perturbed history exploration (PHE), a method where exploration is done by training on randomly perturbed rewards. In doing so, we provide a simple and clean explanation of when and why random reward perturbations give rise to good bandit algorithms. We propose data-dependent perturbations not present in previous PHE-type methods that allow EVILL to match the performance of Thompson-sampling-style parameter-perturbation methods, both in theory and in practice. Moreover, we show an example outside generalised linear bandits where PHE leads to inconsistent estimates, and thus linear regret, while EVILL remains performant. Like PHE, EVILL can be implemented in just a few lines of code.