Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Making Sense of Reinforcement Learning and Probabilistic Inference

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2001.00805 v3 pith:A2EZBORB submitted 2020-01-03 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords inferenceproblemagentalgorithmsapproximationframeworklearningmust
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) combines a control problem with statistical estimation: The system dynamics are not known to the agent, but can be learned through experience. A recent line of research casts `RL as inference' and suggests a particular framework to generalize the RL problem as probabilistic inference. Our paper surfaces a key shortcoming in that approach, and clarifies the sense in which RL can be coherently cast as an inference problem. In particular, an RL agent must consider the effects of its actions upon future rewards and observations: The exploration-exploitation tradeoff. In all but the most simple settings, the resulting inference is computationally intractable so that practical RL algorithms must resort to approximation. We demonstrate that the popular `RL as inference' approximation can perform poorly in even very basic problems. However, we show that with a small modification the framework does yield algorithms that can provably perform well, and we show that the resulting algorithm is equivalent to the recently proposed K-learning, which we further connect with Thompson sampling.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools