PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Optimal Sample Complexity for Average Reward Markov Decision Processes

Shengbo Wang, Jose Blanchet, Peter Glynn

reinforcement learningMarkov decision processeslong run average rewardsample complexity
100.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
100.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±25 pct pts (from σ = 0.57)
100.00100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±25 pct pts (from σ = 0.56)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We resolve the open question regarding the sample complexity of policy learning for maximizing the long-run average reward associated with a uniformly ergodic Markov decision process (MDP), assuming a generative model.

Abstract

We resolve the open question regarding the sample complexity of policy learning for maximizing the long-run average reward associated with a uniformly ergodic Markov decision process (MDP), assuming a generative model. In this context, the existing literature provides a sample complexity upper bound of $\widetilde O(|S||A|t_{\text{mix}}^2 \epsilon^{-2})$ and a lower bound of $\Omega(|S||A|t_{\text{mix}} \epsilon^{-2})$. In these expressions, $|S|$ and $|A|$ denote the cardinalities of the state and action spaces respectively, $t_{\text{mix}}$ serves as a uniform upper limit for the total variation mixing times, and $\epsilon$ signifies the error tolerance. Therefore, a notable gap of $t_{\text{mix}}$ still remains to be bridged. Our primary contribution is the development of an estimator for the optimal policy of average reward MDPs with a sample complexity of $\widetilde O(|S||A|t_{\text{mix}}\epsilon^{-2})$. This marks the first algorithm and analysis to reach the literature's lower bound. Our new algorithm draws inspiration from ideas in Li et al. (2020), Jin \& Sidford (2021), and Wang et al. (2023). Additionally, we conduct numerical experiments to validate our theoretical findings.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)