A View of the Certainty-Equivalence Method for PAC RL as an Application of the Trajectory Tree Method

TL;DR

This paper reveals that the certainty-equivalence method in PAC reinforcement learning can be viewed as an application of the trajectory tree method, leading to simpler proofs and improved sample complexity bounds.

Contribution

It establishes a novel connection between CEM and TTM, providing new proofs and tighter bounds for sample complexity in PAC RL under weaker assumptions.

Findings

New proofs of sample complexity bounds for CEM

Improved bounds for non-stationary and stationary MDPs

Lower bound showing minimax-optimality in small-error regime

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) enables an agent interacting with an unknown MDP $M$ to optimise its behaviour by observing transitions sampled from $M$. A natural entity that emerges in the agent's reasoning is $\widehat{M}$, the maximum likelihood estimate of $M$ based on the observed transitions. The well-known \textit{certainty-equivalence} method (CEM) dictates that the agent update its behaviour to $\widehat{\pi}$, which is an optimal policy for $\widehat{M}$. Not only is CEM intuitive, it has been shown to enjoy minimax-optimal sample complexity in some regions of the parameter space for PAC RL with a generative model~\citep{Agarwal2020GenModel}. A seemingly unrelated algorithm is the ``trajectory tree method'' (TTM)~\citep{Kearns+MN:1999}, originally developed for efficient decision-time planning in large POMDPs. This paper presents a theoretical investigation that stems from the surprising finding that CEM may indeed be viewed as an application of TTM. The qualitative benefits of this view are (1) new and simple proofs of sample complexity upper bounds for CEM, in fact under a (2) weaker assumption on the rewards than is prevalent in the current literature. Our analysis applies to both non-stationary and stationary MDPs. Quantitatively, we obtain (3) improvements in the sample-complexity upper bounds for CEM both for non-stationary and stationary MDPs, in the regime that the ``mistake probability'' $\delta$ is small. Additionally, we show (4) a lower bound on the sample complexity for finite-horizon MDPs, which establishes the minimax-optimality of our upper bound for non-stationary MDPs in the small-$\delta$ regime.