Pith. sign in

REVIEW 12 cited by

Exploration-Exploitation in Constrained MDPs

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 2003.02189 v1 pith:4APG6YXT submitted 2020-03-04 cs.LG stat.ML

Exploration-Exploitation in Constrained MDPs

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords whileapproachformulationlearningagentcmdpcmdpsconstraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In many sequential decision-making problems, the goal is to optimize a utility function while satisfying a set of constraints on different utilities. This learning problem is formalized through Constrained Markov Decision Processes (CMDPs). In this paper, we investigate the exploration-exploitation dilemma in CMDPs. While learning in an unknown CMDP, an agent should trade-off exploration to discover new information about the MDP, and exploitation of the current knowledge to maximize the reward while satisfying the constraints. While the agent will eventually learn a good or optimal policy, we do not want the agent to violate the constraints too often during the learning process. In this work, we analyze two approaches for learning in CMDPs. The first approach leverages the linear formulation of CMDP to perform optimistic planning at each episode. The second approach leverages the dual formulation (or saddle-point formulation) of CMDP to perform incremental, optimistic updates of the primal and dual variables. We show that both achieves sublinear regret w.r.t.\ the main utility while having a sublinear regret on the constraint violations. That being said, we highlight a crucial difference between the two approaches; the linear programming approach results in stronger guarantees than in the dual formulation based approach.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Toward Optimal Regret in Robust Pricing: Decoupling Corruption and Time

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    A robust variant of binary search achieves regret O(C + log T) for dynamic pricing with known corruption C and O(C + log² T) when unknown.

  2. Decoupling Corruption and Horizon in Robust Contextual Pricing

    cs.GT 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Robust contextual pricing admits regret O(Cd + d² log T), the first bound that additively separates corruption budget C from horizon T.

  3. Prudent-Banker: No Extra Fees for Baseline Safety in Adversarial Bandits With and Without Delays

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Prudent-Banker achieves pseudo-regret Õ(√T + √D) and Õ(1) regret vs. safe comparator in adversarial bandits both with and without delays, matching new lower bounds up to logs.

  4. Primal-Dual Policy Optimization for Linear CMDPs with Adversarial Losses

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new primal-dual algorithm for adversarial linear CMDPs achieves the first sublinear regret and constraint violation bounds of order K to the 3/4 using weighted LogSumExp softmax policies with periodic mixing and reg...

  5. Online Resource Allocation With General Constraints

    cs.GT 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An algorithm for online resource allocation with budget and general constraints achieves O(sqrt(T)) regret in stochastic and alpha-regret in adversarial regimes with bounded constraint violations.

  6. Fast Rates for Offline Contextual Bandits with Forward-KL Regularization under Single-Policy Concentrability

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The paper establishes the first tilde O(epsilon^{-1}) upper bounds and matching lower bounds for forward-KL-regularized offline contextual bandits under single-policy concentrability in both tabular and general functi...

  7. Learning Safely Without Knowing the World:COMPASS-Hedge

    cs.LG 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    COMPASS-Hedge is claimed to be the first parameter-free full-information anytime algorithm with simultaneous minimax adversarial, gap-dependent stochastic, and near-constant baseline-relative regret.

  8. Learning Safely Without Knowing the World:COMPASS-Hedge

    cs.LG 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    COMPASS-Hedge is presented as the first parameter-free full-information anytime algorithm that simultaneously delivers minimax-optimal adversarial regret, instance-optimal stochastic regret, and Õ(1) regret to a basel...

  9. Near-Optimal Policy Identification in Robust Constrained Markov Decision Processes via Epigraph Form

    cs.LG 2024-08 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Presents the first algorithm to identify an ε-optimal policy in robust constrained MDPs via epigraph form and bisection search with Õ(ε^{-4}) robust policy evaluations.

  10. Fairness in two-player zero-sum games with bandit feedback

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A reparametrization reduces fair zero-sum games under bandit feedback to standard games on a transformed matrix, enabling an Õ(T^{2/3}) regret bound for learning general mixed fair equilibria via an Explore-Then-Commi...

  11. Beyond Slater's Condition in Online CMDPs with Stochastic and Adversarial Constraints

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new algorithm achieves Õ(√T) regret and constraint violation in online CMDPs without Slater's condition, plus sublinear α-regret against the unconstrained optimum under adversarial constraints.

  12. Last-Iterate Convergence of General Parameterized Policies in Constrained MDPs

    cs.LG 2024-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PDR-ANPG achieves last-iterate ε-optimality gap and ε constraint violation in CMDPs with sample complexity Õ(ε^{-2} min{ε^{-2}, ε_bias^{-1/3}}) for parameterized policies with transferred compatibility error ε_bias.