pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24345 · v1 · pith:7LBSERVTnew · submitted 2026-05-23 · 💻 cs.LG

Evolving Robustness--Exploration Trade-off in Online Reinforcement Learning via Quantile Bayesian Risk MDPs

Meichen Song , Yuhao Wang , Enlu Zhou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords online reinforcement learningBayesian risk MDPsquantile methodsrobustness-exploration trade-offBayesian regretadaptive quantile scheduleepistemic uncertainty
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantile levels in Bayesian risk MDPs can be scheduled adaptively to trade early robustness for later exploration while achieving sublinear Bayesian regret.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that online reinforcement learning faces a time-varying robustness-exploration trade-off due to epistemic uncertainty. It introduces quantile Bayesian risk MDPs where the quantile level modulates how posterior uncertainty affects the Bellman backup. An asymptotic normality result shows that tail quantiles create optimism or pessimism whose strength fades with more data. An algorithm with an adaptive quantile schedule is proposed that starts with robustness and gradually favors exploration. Sublinear Bayesian regret bounds are proven relative to both the true optimal value and the optimal BR-MDP robust value.

Core claim

The central claim is that quantile BR-MDPs, controlled by an adaptive quantile schedule, achieve sublinear Bayesian regret bounds with respect to both the true optimal value and the optimal BR-MDP robust value. The schedule works because upper- and lower-tail quantiles induce optimism or pessimism toward epistemic uncertainty, with the magnitude of this effect decreasing as data accumulate.

What carries the argument

The quantile Bayesian risk-aware Markov decision process (BR-MDP), in which the quantile level determines how posterior uncertainty enters the Bellman backup.

If this is right

  • The adaptive quantile schedule places more weight on robustness early when uncertainty is high and shifts toward exploration of less-visited pairs later.
  • Sublinear regret is guaranteed simultaneously to the true-environment optimum and to the robust optimum defined by the BR-MDP.
  • The method performs well in both exploration-demanding and exploration-costly environments according to the reported experiments.
  • The characterization via asymptotic normality directly justifies decreasing the influence of uncertainty as data grow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar adaptive schedules could be derived for other risk measures that admit an asymptotic normality characterization.
  • The approach may reduce unsafe early behavior in physical systems where early mistakes are costly.
  • The regret bounds suggest that the same framework could be applied to risk-sensitive variants of other online decision problems.

Load-bearing premise

The asymptotic normality result for the difference between the quantile BR-MDP value and the true-environment value holds and implies that the magnitude of optimism or pessimism decreases with data accumulation.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment in which the Bayesian regret grows faster than sublinear or in which the optimism or pessimism induced by tail quantiles fails to diminish as the number of samples increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24345 by Enlu Zhou, Meichen Song, Yuhao Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Performance in RiverSwim-6 (left column) and RiverSwim-10 (right column). The first row shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cumulative true regret (left column) and cumulative robust regret with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior 0.1-quantile value 𝑉b𝜋𝑡 ,q 𝜙𝑡 ,0.1 (𝑠0) in risky-branch FrozenLake for 𝜃 = 0.7 and 𝜃 = 0.9. adaptive schedule varies with the pseudo-episode index and relative state-action visit counts, allowing the policy to be more conservative early in learning and less conservative when further exploration is needed. We theoretically prove a sublinear Bayesian regret bound and numerically demonstrate that AQ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In online reinforcement learning, data scarcity creates epistemic uncertainty that makes robustness important early in learning, whereas sufficient exploration is needed to learn the true-environment optimal policy. We study this time-varying robustness--exploration trade-off through a quantile Bayesian risk-aware Markov decision process (BR-MDP), in which the quantile level controls how posterior uncertainty enters the Bellman backup. We characterize this control through an asymptotic normality result for the difference between the quantile BR-MDP value and the value in the true environment. The result implies that upper/lower-tail quantiles induce optimism/pessimism towards epistemic uncertainty, and the magnitude of the optimism/pessimism decreases as data accumulate. Building on this characterization, we propose an online Bayesian risk-aware algorithm with an adaptive quantile schedule that emphasizes robustness early and gradually encourages exploration of less-visited state--action pairs. We establish sublinear Bayesian regret bounds with respect to both the true optimal value and the optimal BR-MDP robust value. Numerical experiments demonstrate strong performance in both exploration-demanding and exploration-costly environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a quantile Bayesian risk-aware MDP (BR-MDP) framework for online RL in which the quantile level governs how posterior epistemic uncertainty enters the Bellman backup. An asymptotic normality result is derived for the difference between the quantile BR-MDP value and the true-environment value; this is used to motivate an adaptive quantile schedule that begins robust (extreme quantiles) and gradually shifts toward exploration (quantiles near 0.5) as visitation counts increase. An online algorithm implementing this schedule is analyzed, yielding sublinear Bayesian regret bounds simultaneously with respect to the true optimal value and the optimal BR-MDP robust value. Experiments illustrate performance in exploration-demanding and exploration-costly settings.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the work supplies a principled, time-varying mechanism for balancing robustness against epistemic uncertainty with the need for exploration, together with dual regret guarantees. The explicit link between quantile choice and optimism/pessimism decay, if rigorously justified, would be a useful addition to risk-aware RL.

major comments (1)
  1. [asymptotic normality result and its use in the adaptive schedule and regret analysis] The asymptotic normality result is stated for a fixed quantile level. The algorithm and regret analysis instead employ a time-varying adaptive schedule q_t that depends on the empirical visitation measure. The centering and scaling arguments that produce the normal limit do not automatically extend to this data-dependent, changing quantile; consequently the claimed rate at which optimism/pessimism vanishes (and therefore the validity of the subsequent Bayesian regret bounds) is not guaranteed. This issue is load-bearing for the central claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise definition of the BR-MDP value function and how the quantile is inserted into the Bellman operator (e.g., which equation).
  2. The experimental section would benefit from explicit reporting of environment details, number of runs, and statistical significance of the reported performance differences.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [asymptotic normality result and its use in the adaptive schedule and regret analysis] The asymptotic normality result is stated for a fixed quantile level. The algorithm and regret analysis instead employ a time-varying adaptive schedule q_t that depends on the empirical visitation measure. The centering and scaling arguments that produce the normal limit do not automatically extend to this data-dependent, changing quantile; consequently the claimed rate at which optimism/pessimism vanishes (and therefore the validity of the subsequent Bayesian regret bounds) is not guaranteed. This issue is load-bearing for the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that the stated asymptotic normality holds for fixed quantiles and that the adaptive schedule q_t is data-dependent. The fixed-quantile result is used primarily to motivate the form of the schedule (extreme quantiles early, approaching 0.5 later). To close the gap for the regret bounds, we will revise the analysis to handle the time-varying case by showing that q_t varies sufficiently slowly (only at visitation increments) for the centering and scaling to carry through with an additional o(1) perturbation term that does not affect the sublinear regret rates. The revised proof will appear in an updated appendix. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: asymptotic normality result presented as independent characterization; adaptive schedule and regret bounds do not reduce to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper derives an asymptotic normality result for the difference between quantile BR-MDP value and true-environment value, then uses it to motivate an adaptive quantile schedule and establish regret bounds w.r.t. both true optimal and BR-MDP optimal values. No equations or text in the abstract or description show the normality result being obtained by fitting parameters to the target quantities, self-definition of BR-MDP in terms of the schedule, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with the normality serving as a first-principles characterization rather than a renamed or fitted input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claims rest on an unshown asymptotic normality result and the definition of the quantile BR-MDP.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5719 in / 1120 out tokens · 27230 ms · 2026-06-30T15:07:43.105651+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the Thirty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1--11

    Abbasi-Yadkori Y, Szepesv \'a ri C (2015) Bayesian optimal control of smoothly parameterized systems. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1--11

    2015

  2. [2]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 48(1):363--392

    Agrawal S, Jia R (2023) Optimistic posterior sampling for reinforcement learning: Worst-case regret bounds. Mathematics of Operations Research 48(1):363--392

    2023

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 263--272

    Azar MG, Osband I, Munos R (2017) Minimax regret bounds for reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 263--272

    2017

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 511--520

    Badrinath KP, Kalathil D (2021) Robust reinforcement learning using least squares policy iteration with provable performance guarantees. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 511--520

    2021

  5. [5]

    Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 35--42 (AUAI Press)

    Bartlett PL, Tewari A (2009) REGAL : A regularization based algorithm for reinforcement learning in weakly communicating MDP s. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 35--42 (AUAI Press)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

    Blanchet J, Lu M, Zhang T, Zhong H (2023) Double pessimism is provably efficient for distributionally robust offline reinforcement learning: Generic algorithm and robust partial coverage. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

    2023

  7. [7]

    Electronic Journal of Statistics 3:114--148

    Boucheron S, Gassiat E (2009) A Bernstein--von Mises theorem for discrete probability distributions. Electronic Journal of Statistics 3:114--148

    2009

  8. [8]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:213--231

    Brafman RI, Tennenholtz M (2002) R-MAX : A general polynomial time algorithm for near-optimal reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:213--231

    2002

  9. [9]

    Operations Research 58(1):203--213, ://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1080.0685

    Delage E, Mannor S (2010) Percentile optimization for Markov decision processes with parameter uncertainty. Operations Research 58(1):203--213, ://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1080.0685

    work page doi:10.1287/opre.1080.0685 2010

  10. [10]

    Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Structural Safety 31(2):105--112

    2009

  11. [11]

    ArXiv:2209.13841

    Dong J, Li J, Wang B, Zhang J (2022) Online policy optimization for robust MDP . ArXiv:2209.13841

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    International Conference on Learning Representations

    Dong K, Wang Y, Chen X, Wang L (2020) Q -learning with UCB exploration is sample efficient for infinite-horizon MDP . International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  13. [13]

    Duff MO (2002) Optimal Learning: Computational Procedures for Bayes -adaptive Markov Decision Processes . Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst

    2002

  14. [14]

    Machine Learning 110(9):2419--2468

    Dulac-Arnold G, Levine N, Mankowitz DJ, Li J, Paduraru C, Gowal S, Hester T (2021) Challenges of real-world reinforcement learning: Definitions, benchmarks and analysis. Machine Learning 110(9):2419--2468

    2021

  15. [15]

    Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 108 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1431--1441

    Garcelon E, Ghavamzadeh M, Lazaric A, Pirotta M (2020) Conservative exploration in reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 108 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1431--1441

    2020

  16. [16]

    Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 8(5--6):359--483

    Ghavamzadeh M, Mannor S, Pineau J, Tamar A (2015) Bayesian reinforcement learning: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 8(5--6):359--483

    2015

  17. [17]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 40(25):21278--21286

    Ghosh D, Atia GK, Wang Y (2026) ORVIT : Near-optimal online distributionally robust reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 40(25):21278--21286

    2026

  18. [18]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 22288--22300

    He J, Zhou D, Gu Q (2021) Nearly minimax optimal reinforcement learning for discounted MDP s. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 22288--22300

    2021

  19. [19]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 30(2):257--280

    Iyengar GN (2005) Robust dynamic programming. Mathematics of Operations Research 30(2):257--280

    2005

  20. [20]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 11(51):1563--1600

    Jaksch T, Ortner R, Auer P (2010) Near-optimal regret bounds for reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11(51):1563--1600

    2010

  21. [21]

    Jin C, Allen-Zhu Z, Bubeck S, Jordan MI (2018) Is Q -learning provably efficient? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31

    2018

  22. [22]

    Machine Learning 49(2--3):209--232

    Kearns M, Singh S (2002) Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning 49(2--3):209--232

    2002

  23. [23]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39(27):28195--28203

    Liang B, Xu L, Taneja A, Tambe M, Janson L (2025) Context in public health for underserved communities: A Bayesian approach to online restless bandits. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39(27):28195--28203

    2025

  24. [24]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 17430--17442

    Lin Y, Ren Y, Zhou E (2022) Bayesian risk Markov decision processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 17430--17442

    2022

  25. [25]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39(25):26605--26613

    Lin Y, Zhou E (2025) Approximate bilevel difference convex programming for Bayesian risk Markov decision processes. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39(25):26605--26613

    2025

  26. [26]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37

    Lu M, Zhong H, Zhang T, Blanchet J (2024) Distributionally robust reinforcement learning with interactive data collection: Fundamental hardness and near-optimal algorithms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37

    2024

  27. [27]

    International Conference on Learning Representations

    Ma J, Lee WS (2026) EUBRL : Epistemic uncertainty directed Bayesian reinforcement learning. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2026

  28. [28]

    Operations Research 53(5):780--798

    Nilim A, El Ghaoui L (2005) Robust control of Markov decision processes with uncertain transition matrices. Operations Research 53(5):780--798

    2005

  29. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26

    Osband I, Russo D, Van Roy B (2013) (More) efficient reinforcement learning via posterior sampling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26

    2013

  30. [30]

    Posterior Sampling for Reinforcement Learning Without Episodes

    Osband I, Van Roy B (2016) Posterior sampling for reinforcement learning without episodes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.02731

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Osband I, Van Roy B (2017) Why is posterior sampling better than optimism for reinforcement learning? Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2701--2710 (PMLR)

    2017

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 151 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 9582--9602

    Panaganti K, Kalathil D (2022) Sample complexity of robust reinforcement learning with a generative model. Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 151 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 9582--9602

    2022

  33. [33]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 32211--32224

    Panaganti K, Xu Z, Kalathil D, Ghavamzadeh M (2022) Robust reinforcement learning using offline data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 32211--32224

    2022

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 697--704

    Poupart P, Vlassis N, Hoey J, Regan K (2006) An analytic solution to discrete Bayesian reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 697--704

    2006

  35. [35]

    Puterman ML (1994) Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming (New York: John Wiley & Sons)

    1994

  36. [36]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 20, 1225--1232

    Ross S, Chaib-draa B, Pineau J (2007) Bayes -adaptive POMDP s. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 20, 1225--1232

    2007

  37. [37]

    Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 11(1):1--96

    Russo DJ, Van Roy B, Kazerouni A, Osband I, Wen Z (2018) A tutorial on Thompson sampling. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 11(1):1--96

    2018

  38. [38]

    Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 881--888 (ACM)

    Strehl AL, Li L, Wiewiora E, Langford J, Littman ML (2006) PAC model-free reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 881--888 (ACM)

    2006

  39. [39]

    Journal of Computer and System Sciences 74(8):1309--1331

    Strehl AL, Littman ML (2008) An analysis of model-based interval estimation for Markov decision processes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 74(8):1309--1331

    2008

  40. [40]

    ArXiv:2311.13294

    Tarbouriech J, Lattimore T, O'Donoghue B (2023) Probabilistic inference in reinforcement learning done right. ArXiv:2311.13294

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 21380--21431

    Tiapkin D, Belomestny D, Moulines E, Naumov A, Samsonov S, Tang Y, Valko M, Menard P (2022) From Dirichlet to Rubin : Optimistic exploration in RL without bonuses. Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 21380--21431

    2022

  42. [42]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

    Wang Y, Zhou E (2023) Bayesian risk-averse Q -learning with streaming observations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36

    2023

  43. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14077

    Wang Y, Zhou E (2025) Online Bayesian risk-averse reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14077

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 7193--7206

    Wang Y, Zou S (2021) Online robust reinforcement learning with model uncertainty. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 7193--7206

    2021

  45. [45]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 38(1):153--183

    Wiesemann W, Kuhn D, Rustem B (2013) Robust Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research 38(1):153--183

    2013

  46. [46]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(2):1588--1612

    Wu D, Zhu H, Zhou E (2018) A Bayesian risk approach to data-driven stochastic optimization: Formulations and asymptotics. SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(2):1588--1612

    2018

  47. [47]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 23

    Xu H, Mannor S (2010) Distributionally robust Markov decision processes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 23

    2010

  48. [48]

    Reinforcement Learning Conference (RLC)

    Xu W, Dong S, Van Roy B (2024) Posterior sampling for continuing environments. Reinforcement Learning Conference (RLC)

    2024

  49. [49]

    ArXiv:2403.18539

    Yamagata T, Santos-Rodr \' guez R (2024) Safe and robust reinforcement learning: Principles and practice. ArXiv:2403.18539

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, 3714--3724

    Zhou E, Xie W (2015) Simulation optimization when facing input uncertainty. Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, 3714--3724

    2015

  51. [51]

    Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 130 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 3331--3339

    Zhou Z, Zhou Z, Bai Q, Qiu L, Blanchet J, Glynn P (2021) Finite-sample regret bound for distributionally robust offline tabular reinforcement learning. Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 130 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 3331--3339

    2021

  52. [52]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1...

  53. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...