value iteration
Accelerating Value Iteration with Anchoring
Value Iteration (VI) is foundational to the theory and practice of modern reinforcement learning, and it is known to converge at a $\mathcal{O}(\gamma^k)$-rate. Surprisingly, however, the optimal rate for the VI setup was not known, and finding a general acceleration mechanism has been an open problem. In this paper, we present the first accelerated VI for both the Bellman consistency and optimality operators. Our method, called Anc-VI, is based on an \emph{anchoring} mechanism (distinct from Nesterov's acceleration), and it reduces the Bellman error faster than standard VI. In particular, Anc-VI exhibits a $\mathcal{O}(1/k)$-rate for $\gamma\approx 1$ or even $\gamma=1$, while standard VI has rate $\mathcal{O}(1)$ for $\gamma\ge 1-1/k$, where $k$ is the iteration count. We also provide a complexity lower bound matching the upper bound up to a constant factor of $4$, thereby establishing optimality of the accelerated rate of Anc-VI. Finally, we show that the anchoring mechanism provides the same benefit in the approximate VI and Gauss--Seidel VI setups as well.
Neural Algorithmic Reasoners are Implicit Planners
Implicit planning has emerged as an elegant technique for combining learned models of the world with end-to-end model-free reinforcement learning. We study the class of implicit planners inspired by value iteration, an algorithm that is guaranteed to yield perfect policies in fully-specified tabular environments. We find that prior approaches either assume that the environment is provided in such a tabular form---which is highly restrictive---or infer local neighbourhoods of states to run value iteration over---for which we discover an algorithmic bottleneck effect. This effect is caused by explicitly running the planning algorithm based on scalar predictions in every state, which can be harmful to data efficiency if such scalars are improperly predicted. We propose eXecuted Latent Value Iteration Networks (XLVINs), which alleviate the above limitations. Our method performs all planning computations in a high-dimensional latent space, breaking the algorithmic bottleneck. It maintains alignment with value iteration by carefully leveraging neural graph-algorithmic reasoning and contrastive self-supervised learning. Across seven low-data settings---including classical control, navigation and Atari---XLVINs provide significant improvements to data efficiency against value iteration-based implicit planners, as well as relevant model-free baselines. Lastly, we empirically verify that XLVINs can closely align with value iteration.
Heuristics for Combinatorial Optimization via Value-based Reinforcement Learning: A Unified Framework and Analysis
Davidovich, Orit, Shtern, Shimrit, Wasserkrug, Segev, Megiddo, Nimrod
Since the 1990s, considerable empirical work has been carried out to train statistical models, such as neural networks (NNs), as learned heuristics for combinatorial optimization (CO) problems. When successful, such an approach eliminates the need for experts to design heuristics per problem type. Due to their structure, many hard CO problems are amenable to treatment through reinforcement learning (RL). Indeed, we find a wealth of literature training NNs using value-based, policy gradient, or actor-critic approaches, with promising results, both in terms of empirical optimality gaps and inference runtimes. Nevertheless, there has been a paucity of theoretical work undergirding the use of RL for CO problems. To this end, we introduce a unified framework to model CO problems through Markov decision processes (MDPs) and solve them using RL techniques. We provide easy-to-test assumptions under which CO problems can be formulated as equivalent undiscounted MDPs that provide optimal solutions to the original CO problems. Moreover, we establish conditions under which value-based RL techniques converge to approximate solutions of the CO problem with a guarantee on the associated optimality gap. Our convergence analysis provides: (1) a sufficient rate of increase in batch size and projected gradient descent steps at each RL iteration; (2) the resulting optimality gap in terms of problem parameters and targeted RL accuracy; and (3) the importance of a choice of state-space embedding. Together, our analysis illuminates the success (and limitations) of the celebrated deep Q-learning algorithm in this problem context.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Israel (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Reinforcement Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Undirected Networks > Markov Models (0.34)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > United States > New Jersey > Mercer County > Princeton (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > United States > New Jersey > Mercer County > Princeton (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales > Sydney (0.04)
- North America > United States > Washington > King County > Bellevue (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.14)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Europe > Serbia > Central Serbia > Belgrade (0.04)