Satinder Singh started a new blog named Reinforcement Learning blog. Now, I can see that Michael Littman is one of the authors of the blog – though he hasn’t published any post yet. This is a good news for RL. Good luck to them!
Amir-massoud Farahmand's thoughts on reinforcement learning, machine learning, and other wonderful stuff!
Satinder Singh started a new blog named Reinforcement Learning blog. Now, I can see that Michael Littman is one of the authors of the blog – though he hasn’t published any post yet. This is a good news for RL. Good luck to them!
Hi,
I wanted to leave a comment to respond to your comment about the “rationality” of minimax-Q, but comments are closed at https://thesilog.sologen.net/?p=76, so I decided to leave my comment here. 🙂
The “non-rationality” of minimax-Q follows from Bowling and Veloso’s (idiosyncratic?) definition of rationality. Specifically, they define it to be converging to best response against a stationary strategy (even a suboptimal one). Minimax-Q actually ignores the opponent’s strategy and assumes a worst-case opponent, so, indeed minimax-Q fails to satisfy their definition.
Your alternative definition is interesting. It says that a “rational” learning algorithm should adopt a best response to any Nash-equilibrium opponent. In zero-sum games (which is where minimax-Q makes the most sense), this definition is equivalent to saying that the learner should adopt a minimax policy. Of course, that’s exactly what minimax-Q does, so it passes your rationality test in this case.
-Michael
Thanks Michael for your clarification!
I have ignored this blog for a long time.