Provably Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Multinomial Logit Function Approximation

We study a new class of MDPs that employs multinomial logit (MNL) function approximation to ensure valid probability distributions over the state space. Despite its significant benefits, incorporating the non-linear function raises substantial challenges in both statistical and computational efficiency. The best-known result of Hwang and Oh [2023] has achieved an $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\kappa^{-1}dH^2\sqrt{K})$ regret upper bound, where $\kappa$ is a problem-dependent quantity, $d$ is the feature dimension, $H$ is the episode length, and $K$ is the number of episodes. However, we observe that $\kappa^{-1}$ exhibits polynomial dependence on the number of reachable states, which can be as large as the state space size in the worst case and thus undermines the motivation for function approximation. Additionally, their method requires storing all historical data and the time complexity scales linearly with the episode count, which is computationally expensive. In this work, we propose a statistically efficient algorithm that achieves a regret of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(dH^2\sqrt{K} + \kappa^{-1}d^2H^2)$, eliminating the dependence on $\kappa^{-1}$ in the dominant term for the first time. We then address the computational challenges by introducing an enhanced algorithm that achieves the same regret guarantee but with only constant cost. Finally, we establish the first lower bound for this problem, justifying the optimality of our results in $d$ and $K$.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer tHPh5/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-16

Summary

This paper considers MDPs employing the MNL function for transition probability, following Hwang and Oh [2023]. The authors suggest efficient algorithms based on online Newton steps, inspired by [Hazan et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Oh and Iyengar, 2021]. Furthermore, to improve $\kappa$ dependency, they provide algorithms employing local learning with mirror descent inspired by [Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023; Lee and Oh, 2024]. The algorithms achieve $1/\sqrt{\kappa}$ or even detach the dependency of $\kappa$ from the leading term.

Strengths

The suggested algorithms are computationally efficient and show improvement in $\kappa$ compared to the previous work of Hwang and Oh [2023].

Weaknesses

- Their suggested algorithms do not seem novel because they are based on previously proposed methods for logistic or MNL bandits. Specifically, the online Newton update is widely studied for MNL or logistic bandits [Oh and Iyengar, 2021; Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023]. - Furthermore, the improvement on $\kappa$ is based on the mirror descent algorithm proposed in [Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023; Lee and Oh, 2024], and the proofs seem to follow the steps in [Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023; Lee and Oh, 2024] in the appendix. - Lastly, the MNL model for transition probability may have an inherent weakness: the number of achievable states for each (k,n) must be finite, and it is required to know the state space of $S_{k,n}$. [1] Faury, Louis, et al. "Jointly efficient and optimal algorithms for logistic bandits." International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2022.

Questions

Are there any non-trivial technical novelties in utilizing the online mirror descent method for MDPs?

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors discuss some interesting future work regarding regret bound. Additionally, I believe, as mentioned in Weaknesses, the MNL model for transition probability has an inherent weakness: the number of achievable states for each (k,n) must be finite, and it is required to know the state space of $S_{k,n}$.

Reviewer tHPh2024-08-10

Thank you for your comment.

Overall, I agree that there are several adjustments needed to apply the mirror descent approach to RL. This work extends previous research on bandits to the RL setting. However, I have concerns about the significance of the technical novelty of this work. I believe that the second-order Taylor expansion mentioned by the author may not be unique to RL, as it is also used in bandit problems. Therefore, I'm maintaining my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Thanks for your reply.

We appreciate your feedback but have to disagree with this comment. We would like to offer some clarifications that underscore the contributions of our work to the field of RL. **Technical relationship between bandits and MDPs.** Since bandits can be viewed as one-step MDPs, it's *common and reasonable* for methodologies and analyses in MDPs to draw inspiration from bandits (e.g., linear bandits vs. linear MDPs). To some extent, bandit techniques are fundamental to modern RL theory and many RL algorithms are built upon bandit algorithms. However, the most intriguing and challenging aspect of RL theory lies in leveraging its unique structure, particularly when addressing the intrinsic dimension in function approximation settings. **Our unique technical challenge and innovations.** Our work builds on recent advancements in MNL bandits, which have been well acknowledged in our paper. However, it is crucial to note that *several non-trivial technical innovations are necessary* to achieve favorable regret bounds. While employing high-level ideas like the Taylor expansion is not entirely new, the corresponding terms of MNL MDPs are significantly different from the bandit setting, which requires *new and more sophisticated analyses*. **Significance and Impact of Our Results.** Beyond technical novelty, our results hold significant value and are important for the community. Understanding function approximation is one of the central challenges in RL theory and there are many efforts devoted to, yielding fruitful results. However, one limitation is the linear assumption may not guarantee valid transition probabilities. MNL MDPs address this limitation by incorporating non-linear function approximation, which brings significant challenges as well. Our work not only is *the first to achieve nearly the same statistical and computational efficiency* as linear function approximation but also establishes *the first lower bound* for this problem. Our work broadens the scope of function approximation greatly and makes a significant step forward in RL theory. We hope this clarification highlights the uniqueness and importance of our contributions and addresses your concerns regarding the novelty and impact of our work. We believe our work is crucial for the community. We appreciate it if you could reconsider your evaluation in light of these clarifications.

Reviewer tHPh2024-08-12

Thank you for your comment

Thank you for clarifying your contribution. I still believe that the technical contribution may not be significant, which is an important factor for this conference. This is why I consider the contribution of this work to be on the borderline (4 or 5). However, I may have overlooked the first contribution of this paper regarding the extension to RL theory using recent bandit algorithms and techniques. From that perspective, I have raised my score to 5.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you.

Thanks for your re-evaluation! We will carefully revise the paper to better highlight the technical contributions and the significance of our results.

Reviewer Roix6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-11

Summary

In this paper, the author analyzes a Markov Decision Process (MDP) model with non-linear function approximation. Specifically, in the finite-time horizon inhomogeneous episodic MDPs setting, the transition dynamics are unknown but the reward function is known. The author proposes using a multinomial logit (MNL) function approximation to estimate transition dynamics, which is superior to the linear function approximation if the model is misspecified in \cite{hwang2023model}. Additionally, the author proposes *UCRL-MBL-OL*, which adapts the previous work that is model-based and has large computational and storage complexity, to an online style that only consumes constant computation and storage resources. Moreover, the author has proven that the regret bound of *UCRL-MBL-OL* matches the state-of-the-art in Theorem 1. Its regret bound achieves $\tilde{O}(\kappa^{-1} dH^2\sqrt{K})$, where $H$ is the time horizon length, $K$ is the number of total episodes and $\kappa$ is considered as a parameter to control the sparsity of the transition dynamics and $d$ is the hidden dimensionality. Ignoring the logarithmic factor and $\kappa$, such a regret bound has only a $\sqrt{H}$ gap compared to the lower bound. After that, with additional assumption, the author utilizes the local information to propose another two algorithms, *UCRL-MNL-LL* and *UCRL-MNL-LL+* to remove the dependence on $\kappa$ and get a tighter regret bound as well as maintain good properties of *UCRL-MNL-OL*.

Strengths

1. This paper is well-written. The author makes a clear improvement point compared to the literature. 2. The algorithm proposed by the author enjoys an online learning style that does not need to maintain a large historical set.

Weaknesses

1. Although this paper focuses on reducing the computation complexity, I am curious about the sample complexity of *UCRL-MNL-OL*. 2. Since the algorithm builds up the estimation of the transition dynamics by using MNL function approximation, is it considered a model-based algorithm? More specifically, does it require storing the transition dynamics for each state-action pair in every step?

Questions

Please see the above "Weaknesses"

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

NA

Reviewer xBZM6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This work studies the MNL function approximation inhomogeneous RL, achieves the $O(1)$ computation cost, and improves the regret guarantee with regard to $\kappa$. To improve the computation cost, this work employs the online Newton step instead of MLE estimation to estimate $\theta$. Then, they design a novel confidence set by making full use of local information to improve the dependence of $\kappa$.

Strengths

1. The use of local information instead of a uniform $\kappa$ is novel and useful to improve the dependence of $\kappa$. 2. The UCRL-MNL-LL+ removes the $\kappa$ dependence on the lower-order term and almost matches the optimal regret results by using high-order Taylor expansion.

Weaknesses

1. [1] also use the online Newton step to improve the computation cost in the logit contextual bandits setting. It would be better to discuss the novelty of UCRL-MNL-OL. [1] Oh, M. H., & Iyengar, G. (2021, May). Multinomial logit contextual bandits: Provable optimality and practicality. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 9205-9213).

Questions

Question 1: This work achieves great results in the stochastic reward setting. Can you discuss the challenge when extending to the adversarial reward setting?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer zUWe6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-15

Summary

The problem considered in this paper is online learning in MDPs where transition probabilities are modelled with a log-linear model (with "multinomial logit function approximation"). The finite horizon, time-inhomogenous setting is considered. The problem is motivated by allowing a nonlinear transformation in modeling the MDP and yet maintaining both computational and information theoretic tractability. Inspired by results in the analogous bandit problems and algorithms developed for them, a number of gradually more complex, but (statistically) better performing algorithms are considered. In particular, while naive approaches give a poor dependence on a problem parameter $\kappa$ that characterizes the "strength" of nonlinearity, by adopting previous ideas to the MDP setting, new algorithms are designed that eliminate this poor dependence. A lower bound is also established, which nearly matches the upper bound (but considers infinite action spaces, while the main paper considers finite action spaces).

Strengths

This is a reasonable problem setting; and the approach is also reasonable. It is nice to have a lower bound, even if there is a mismatch between the settings. It is nice to see that ideas that were developed for the bandit setting generalize to the MDP setting.

Weaknesses

1. The novelty is limited by that we have seen the same story, same ideas playing out nicely in the closely related bandit setting. 2. A new parameter, U, the number of next states that are reachable with positive probability in the worst case, appears in the analysis and will appear in the bounds. 3. It is an unpleasant surprise for the reader to discover this dependence only through carefully reading the paper, rather than being told upfront. It is not good that the opportunity to discuss whether this quantity needs to enter the regret bound, and that this quantity needs to be small for the algorithm to be tractable, is missed. 4. Line 83 and onward: The work of Uohamma is discussed but is mischaracterized. My reading of this work is that they do establish that their algorithm runs in polynomial time. It remains unclear why the exponential family model is incomparable with the one considered here; an explanation (with examples) is missing. 5. The paper could use some extra proofreading (e.g., the upper indices in the bottom of page 5, in the displayed equation are not correct); in line 149, in the definition of $U$, $|\cdot|$ is missing.

Questions

1. Can you confirm that the regret and compute cost depend on U, the worst-case number of next states that one can transition to with positive probability? Do you think such dependencies are necessary? Are there any interesting examples where it is reasonable to expect that U is small, independently of the size of the state space? 2. What was the most challenging aspect of extending the bandit ideas to the MDP framework?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

n.a.

Reviewer zUWe2024-08-13

Thanks for the rebuttal; it was useful. Overall, my feelings towards the paper have not changed: This is a fine peace of work that should get published. I still have some reservations concerning the model; in fact, one of the reservations I have I forgot to include into my original review is that the algorithm needs to know the support of the next state distribution. This combined with that the size of this support appears in the bound, and that in the related linear kernel MDP setting, the size of the support does not appear in the bounds makes me feel uneasy about the paper. Why is knowing the support problematic? Well, if the size of the support was not part of the bound, one could just "max out" the support (all states are possible next states). If not, in the lack of results showing that the algorithm is robust in the face of misspecified next state support, one is afraid that knowing the support will actually be important. And I expect knowing the support is kinda tricky. Consider for example the SuperMario game, mentioned in the rebuttal. Here, knowing the next states (all 4 of them) encodes a tremendous amount of information about the game. Just consider how many states there are here and compare this to the number 4. How realistic is that one would actually know the support in scenarios like this. So I have doubts. I think an example, where the assumptions are more natural would tremendously help the paper. Also, why not think of some "real" application that people may care about (I have to say I have a hard time imagining anyone to seriously care about how to play SuperMario; and I also have a hard time imagining a more general problem that has the characteristics of SuperMario (ie I don't have a problem with simplified examples, but SuperMario and other games just feel like too arbitrary and unrelated to any "real world" applications).) In summary, notwithstanding these reservations, I am in support of accepting the paper, given that it looks at a somewhat reasonable setting and makes a nontrivial contribution.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-14

Thanks for your valuable comment.

Thanks for your constructive feedback. We agree with the reviewer's observation that the support of the next state distribution plays a key role in the MNL MDP model. Investigating how to remove this prior knowledge is an important future direction. Even though, there are some real-world applications beyond games where the support of the next state distribution is limited and known. For instance, in the robot navigating problem, the robot can only move to nearby locations, even though the overall state space may be extensive. Similarly, in language models, the current state can be conceptualized as the sequence of previously generated words, with the immediately accessible next states being the potential subsequent words. Although the vocabulary could be extensive, the feasible choices for the next word, dictated by grammar and context, are inherently limited and known. We will add these discussions in the next version. We appreciate your helpful suggestions!

Reviewer qUhc6/10 · confidence 3/52024-08-05

Summary

The paper studies the recently proposed MDPs that use multinomial logit function approximation for state distribution validness. The results and algorithms improve the prior work of Hwang and Oh [2023] in multiple aspects, including computation efficiency, storage, and statistical dependence on the problem-dependent quantity $\kappa$ that can be exponentially small. In addition, the authors establish a matching lower bound on $d$, the feature space dimension, and $K$, the number of episodes.

Strengths

- The paper is well-written and has clear logic flows. Readers can see how the authors approach the MDP problem and tackle the challenges. In particular, Table 1 is quite useful for demonstrating the advancements in the work. - The improvements in both computation and storage efficiencies are essential for practical applications. In Theorem 2, the authors also improve the dependence on $kappa$ to $\sqrt{\kappa}$ without affecting efficiency. The enhancement seems significant, especially since the parameter can be exponentially small. - The lower bound established in the paper is the first to demonstrate the optimality of the authors' algorithms in the $d$-$K$ dependence. Per my understanding, it also confirms the results' optimality of Hwang and Oh [2023].

Weaknesses

- The primary high-level techniques and tools (seem to) come from existing works and relevant fields, such as MNL contextual bandits. The authors should put more effort into highlighting the technical challenges and novelties besides the previous comparisons. - It would be beneficial to include experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets and compare the results to existing baselines and relevant works. In particular, the new algorithms seem more involved than prior ones, which may affect their stability and adaptiveness. - There is still a significant gap between the lower and upper bounds. Besides, I wonder how often $\kappa$ could be exponentially small in practical settings, though it's definitely of theoretical interest to approach the lower limits on parameter dependency.

Questions

Overall, I think the paper makes reasonable contributions to the problem, and I have no additional questions/comments besides the above.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have made various comparisons and discussed the limitations of the results, which I'm satisfied with. I do not see any potential negative societal impact of their work.

Reviewer tHPh2024-08-08

Thank you for your response.

For the technical novelty, you mentioned that "In contrast, we employ the second-order Taylor expansion to achieve a more accurate approximation of the value function. This approach is non-trivial and requires a different analysis." Could you provide more details regarding this?

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

Thank you for your response.

Thank you for your response. We would like to take this opportunity to provide additional clarification on the technical contributions of our work. While our algorithm and analysis share certain similarities with existing work on bandits (e.g., Zhang and Sugiyama, 2023; Lee and Oh, 2024), our approach introduces several novel elements specifically tailored to the MDP setting. As the reviewer rightly pointed out (Point 2 of Weaknesses), the online estimation step and the analysis in Section 5.1 do draw from recent advances in bandits. However, it’s important to note that this step only mitigates the dependence to $O(\kappa^{-1/2})$, and an $O(\kappa^{-1/2})$ dependence still persists in the regret bound as shown in Theorem 2. To further reduce the $O(\kappa^{-1/2})$ dependence, it is crucial to examine how local information is preserved in the regret analysis. To this end, Zhang and Sugiyama (2023) use a second-order Taylor expansion to construct the optimistic revenue (Proposition 1), but their approach is designed for a multi-parameter model, which differs fundamentally from our single-parameter model. Lee and Oh (2024) employ *a first-order upper bound* for each item and *specific properties of MNL bandit* to construct the optimistic expected revenue (Eq. (5) and (6) of their paper), which does not hold in our setting. To preserve local information in our work, we need to estimate the value function more accurately. Specifically, whereas Lemma 2 addresses value differences between the value functions, Lemma 4 refines this by incorporating a second-order Taylor expansion, **allowing us to maintain the local information $p(\theta)$ rather than applying the maximum operator as in Lemma 2**. Although this second-order Taylor expansion is inspired by the work of Zhang and Sugiyama (2023), we need new analysis to address the challenges unique to the single-parameter model, such as handling the negative term in our first-order term, which is not present in their work. Moreover, a naive application of their analysis would lead to a regret bound that scales linearly with the number of the reachable states $U$, which is undesired in the MDP setting. We hope this clarifies the contributions of our approach. We are happy to provide further details if needed.

Reviewer xBZM2024-08-12

Thanks for your careful response. The rebuttal addresses my concerns and it would be better to add the above content in the next version. I maintain my score to support this valuable work.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-14

Thanks for your reply.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We will incorporate these discussions into the next version. Thanks again!

Reviewer Roix2024-08-13

Thanks for your answers. It would be great to add sample complexity to the paper. I will not change the rating and will continue to support this work.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you.

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We will include a discussion on sample complexity in the next version.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC