PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Provable and Practical: Efficient Exploration in Reinforcement Learning via Langevin Monte Carlo

Haque Ishfaq, Qingfeng Lan, Pan Xu, A. Rupam Mahmood, Doina Precup, Anima Anandkumar, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli

reinforcement learningExplorationReinforcement LearningThompson SamplingLangevin Monte CarloDeep Reinforcement learning
97.70100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
96.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
98.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We propose a provably and practically efficient reinforcement learning algorithm based on Langevin Monte Carlo.

Abstract

We present a scalable and effective exploration strategy based on Thompson sampling for reinforcement learning (RL). One of the key shortcomings of existing Thompson sampling algorithms is the need to perform a Gaussian approximation of the posterior distribution, which is not a good surrogate in most practical settings. We instead directly sample the Q function from its posterior distribution, by using Langevin Monte Carlo, an efficient type of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. Our method only needs to perform noisy gradient descent updates to learn the exact posterior distribution of the Q function, which makes our approach easy to deploy in deep RL. We provide a rigorous theoretical analysis for the proposed method and demonstrate that, in the linear Markov decision process (linear MDP) setting, it has a regret bound of $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2}H^{3/2}\sqrt{T})$, where $d$ is the dimension of the feature mapping, $H$ is the planning horizon, and $T$ is the total number of steps. We apply this approach to deep RL, by using Adam optimizer to perform gradient updates. Our approach achieves better or similar results compared with state-of-the-art deep RL algorithms on several challenging exploration tasks from the Atari57 suite.

Author context

Most prolific author: 7 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 = 34)