skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Precup, Doina"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Thompson sampling (TS) is one of the most popular exploration techniques in reinforcement learning (RL). However, most TS algorithms with theoretical guarantees are difficult to implement and not generalizable to Deep RL. While the emerging approximate sampling-based exploration schemes are promising, most existing algorithms are specific to linear Markov Decision Processes (MDP) with suboptimal regret bounds, or only use the most basic samplers such as Langevin Monte Carlo. In this work, we propose an algorithmic framework that incorporates different approximate sampling methods with the recently proposed Feel-Good Thompson Sampling (FGTS) approach \citep{zhang2022feel,dann2021provably}, which was previously known to be computationally intractable in general. When applied to linear MDPs, our regret analysis yields the best known dependency of regret on dimensionality, surpassing existing randomized algorithms. Additionally, we provide explicit sampling complexity for each employed sampler. Empirically, we show that in tasks where deep exploration is necessary, our proposed algorithms that combine FGTS and approximate sampling perform significantly better compared to other strong baselines. On several challenging games from the Atari 57 suite, our algorithms achieve performance that is either better than or on par with other strong baselines from the deep RL literature. 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available August 12, 2025
  2. We present a scalable and effective exploration strategy based on Thompson sampling for reinforcement learning (RL). One of the key shortcomings of existing Thompson sampling algorithms is the need to perform a Gaussian approximation of the posterior distribution, which is not a good surrogate in most practical settings. We instead directly sample the Q function from its posterior distribution, by using Langevin Monte Carlo, an efficient type of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. Our method only needs to perform noisy gradient descent updates to learn the exact posterior distribution of the Q function, which makes our approach easy to deploy in deep RL. We provide a rigorous theoretical analysis for the proposed method and demonstrate that, in the linear Markov decision process (linear MDP) setting, it has a regret bound of $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2}H^{3/2}\sqrt{T})$, where $d$ is the dimension of the feature mapping, $H$ is the planning horizon, and $T$ is the total number of steps. We apply this approach to deep RL, by using Adam optimizer to perform gradient updates. Our approach achieves better or similar results compared with state-of-the-art deep RL algorithms on several challenging exploration tasks from the Atari57 suite.\footnote{Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/hmishfaq/LMC-LSVI}} 
    more » « less
    Free, publicly-accessible full text available January 16, 2025
  3. Reward is the driving force for reinforcement-learning agents. This paper is dedicated to understanding the expressivity of reward as a way to capture tasks that we would want an agent to perform. We frame this study around three new abstract notions of “task” that might be desirable: (1) a set of acceptable behaviors, (2) a partial ordering over behaviors, or (3) a partial ordering over trajectories. Our main results prove that while reward can express many of these tasks, there exist instances of each task type that no Markov reward function can capture. We then provide a set of polynomial-time algorithms that construct a Markov reward function that allows an agent to optimize tasks of each of these three types, and correctly determine when no such reward function exists. We conclude with an empirical study that corroborates and illustrates our theoretical findings. 
    more » « less