Span-Based Optimal Sample Complexity for Weakly Communicating and General Average Reward MDPs

We study the sample complexity of learning an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy in an average-reward Markov decision process (MDP) under a generative model. For weakly communicating MDPs, we establish the complexity bound $\widetilde{O}(SA\frac{H}{\varepsilon^2} )$, where $H$ is the span of the bias function of the optimal policy and $SA$ is the cardinality of the state-action space. Our result is the first that is minimax optimal (up to log factors) in all parameters $S,A,H$, and $\varepsilon$, improving on existing work that either assumes uniformly bounded mixing times for all policies or has suboptimal dependence on the parameters. We also initiate the study of sample complexity in general (multichain) average-reward MDPs. We argue a new transient time parameter $B$ is necessary, establish an $\widetilde{O}(SA\frac{B + H}{\varepsilon^2})$ complexity bound, and prove a matching (up to log factors) minimax lower bound. Both results are based on reducing the average-reward MDP to a discounted MDP, which requires new ideas in the general setting. To optimally analyze this reduction, we develop improved bounds for $\gamma$-discounted MDPs, showing that $\widetilde{O}(SA\frac{H}{(1-\gamma)^2\varepsilon^2} )$ and $\widetilde{O}(SA\frac{B + H}{(1-\gamma)^2\varepsilon^2} )$ samples suffice to learn $\varepsilon$-optimal policies in weakly communicating and in general MDPs, respectively. Both these results circumvent the well-known minimax lower bound of $\widetilde{\Omega}(SA\frac{1}{(1-\gamma)^3\varepsilon^2} )$ for $\gamma$-discounted MDPs, and establish a quadratic rather than cubic horizon dependence for a fixed MDP instance.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer hsZR7/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-24

Summary

This paper presents a model-based reinforcement learning algorithm for tabular MDPs with the average reward criteria. The authors assume a generative model (each state-action pairs can be simulated) and studies learning algorithm that sample each state-action pairs n times. In the weakly communicating setting, the authors provides the first algorithm that achieves the minimax lower-bound to find an \varepsilon-policy. The authors study also the more general case of multi-chain MDPs for which the authors introduce a parameter B (time to visite a recurrent-state) and propose both an analysis of a minimax lower bound and an algorithm that achieves this bound.

Strengths

The paper is really well written. The related work section show that the paper is well documented, and the authors make a good use of the related work via the various references throughout the text. The choice of the examples and their use is nicely done. All in all, the paper is nice to ready. The paper improves on related work and obtain an algorithm that matches the lower bound. The paper is very precise in its definitions (contrary to many papers on the same subjects). The paper studies learning algorithm for multi-chain MDPs, which is rarely done.

Weaknesses

The algorithmic novelty of the paper seems limited. Only the analysis seems new. The authors focus on a generative model (although this is probably unavoidable in the multichain case). To me, the discussion on the lower bound is not complete.

Questions

Are there any novelty in the algorithmic part or is it just the analysis that is new? The use of a generative model drastically simplifies the analysis. Would any of these results translate to a navigating model? The lower bound seem to imply that *all* state-action pairs have to be visited n times. I am surprized that the sampling of state-action pairs is not adaptive. Would it change anything?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

NA.

Reviewer AFus7/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-29

Summary

This work obtains the first minimax optimal sample complexity bound of weakly communicating and general average reward MDPs, without uniform mixing assumption, by introducing new transient time parameter and obtaining tighter minimax optimal sample complexity bound for discounted MDP.

Strengths

This theoretical work provides comprehensive lit review. I did not check the proof, but the theoretical results look reasonable and strong based on my knowledge about discounted MDP theory. The presentation is clear.

Weaknesses

A few points are to be clarified as shown in the questions below.

Questions

(1) You may change the following citation which has been accepted by ICLR 2024. [21] Shengbo Wang, Jose Blanchet, and Peter Glynn. Optimal Sample Complexity for Average Reward Markov Decision Processes, October 2023. Some other citations like [13] lack location (ArXiv, conference, journal, etc.). (2) In lines 152-153 about the definition of Blackwell-optimal 154 policy, do you mean for all $\gamma\in[\overline{\gamma},1)$ or $\gamma\in[\overline{\gamma},1]$? Does $V_{\gamma}^{\pi^*}\ge V_{\gamma}^{\pi}$ mean $V_{\gamma}^{\pi^*}(s)\ge V_{\gamma}^{\pi}(s), \forall s$? (3) In lines 155-156, what does $P_{sa}\rho^*$ mean? Does $\rho^*(s)\ge P_{\pi}\rho^*$ mean $\rho^*(s)\ge (P_{\pi}\rho^*)(s):=\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}}P_{\pi}(s,s')\rho^*(s')$? The meaning of $\rho^*(s)\ge {\rm a~vector}$ is not clear to me. (4) In Theorem 2, the accuracy $\overline{\epsilon}=H$ for DMDP is not arbitrarily small. Why can the accuracy for AMDP be arbitrarily small $\epsilon$?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

I agree with the following two statements made in the checklist: (1) Limitations: "The conclusion (Section 5) mentions the main limitation, of the necessity of knowledge of H/B for the optimal average-reward complexity results to hold, and this point is elaborated upon in Section 3." (2) Negative societal impact: "Our work is foundational research on the sample complexity of average-reward and discounted MDPs, and thus is not directly tied to any negative applications."

Reviewer i8Mw7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-03

Summary

This paper presents an algorithm with optimal sample complexity in general average reward MDPs.

Strengths

The algorithm proposed is sample optimal for the general class of MDPs (possibly multichain) that are much harder to learn than uni-chain or ergodic MDPs. It also introduces a new parameter, the transient time that helps one assess the sample complexity for multi-chain MDPs.

Weaknesses

Although the following papers only appear recently on Arxiv ( i am not an author of either of them) I think they should be mentioned because they answer some questions raised in the paper. First XXBoone shows that regret bounds using H are possible without prior knowledge of H, disproving the supposed conejcture in papers [5,4,25] cited in this submission. Actually, the same paper answers the point about the computational eficiency of the optimal algorithm. Second, the results of the current submission should be compared to XXKauffman which seems to solve the same problem. In the ergodic case, i agree that navigating and generative models are almost similar but in the general case, the generative model looks very strong.

Questions

1. The authors discuss the fact that H cannot estimated while D can be. However they do not mention anything about B ? My first guess would be that B cannot be estimated either because it looks discontinuous in the paramaters on the MDP. 2. Maybe I am mistaken but I did not see a proper definition of the transient time B, used in the statement of Theorems 4 and 5.

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Again, the generative model looks like a strong assumptions. The lack of numerical experiments is classical in this domain. It seems that MDPs of size 10 are already impossible to learn, which limits strongly the practical aspect of this type of algorithms. Can the authors comment on this?

Reviewer 6ECs10/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-15

Summary

The paper resolves the open problem of designing an algorithm for the generative tabular average reward setting for weakly communicating MDPs that achieves optimal span-dependent sample complexity with known span. This is done by an original observation that is concerned with discounted MDPs: Existing sample complexity bounds for the discounted setting are refined and the result is obtained from this refinement by reducing the average reward setting to the discounted setting, just like it was done in previous works. A second result is to give the first sample complexity results for general MDPs; with matching lower and upper bounds.

Strengths

Solving a major open problem based on an interesting insight: This is a breakthrough paper.

Weaknesses

None

Questions

n.a.

Rating

10

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

4

Limitations

n.a.

Reviewer AFus2024-08-07

Reviewer AFus is satisfied with the authors' response and will keep rating 7.

Reviewer AFus is satisfied with the authors' response and will keep rating 7.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (oral)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC