Cited by 183Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchMachine Learning and Algorithms

An information-theoretic approach to curiosity-driven reinforcement learning

Still, Susanne, Precup, Doina·2012·Theory in Biosciences

Abstract

We provide a fresh look at the problem of exploration in reinforcement learning, drawing on ideas from information theory. First, we show that Boltzmann-style exploration, one of the main exploration methods used in reinforcement learning, is optimal from an information-theoretic point of view, in that it optimally trades expected return for the coding cost of the policy. Second, we address the problem of curiosity-driven learning. We propose that, in addition to maximizing the expected return, a learner should choose a policy that also maximizes the learner's predictive power. This makes the world both interesting and exploitable. Optimal policies then have the form of Boltzmann-style exploration with a bonus, containing a novel exploration-exploitation trade-off which emerges naturally from the proposed optimization principle. Importantly, this exploration-exploitation trade-off persists in the optimal deterministic policy, i.e., when there is no exploration due to randomness. As a result, exploration is understood as an emerging behavior that optimizes information gain, rather than being modeled as pure randomization of action choices.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12064-011-0142-z

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Game-theoretic approaches to language evolution emphasize utility maximization.

    “One common answer to this question stems from game-theoretic approaches of language evolution that emphasize utility maximization (Chaabouni, Strub, et al., 2021;Steels & Belpaeme, 2005;Still & Precup, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Still, S., & Precup, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Still, Susanne
Venue
Theory in Biosciences
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
131
Issue
3
Pages
139-148
ISSN
  • 1431-7613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-7530
OpenAlex
W2020920737
Cited by
165
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Theory in Biosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
curiosity-driven learning, exploration-exploitation balance, Boltzmann exploration, information-theoretic optimization, predictive power, information gain, expected returns, deterministic policies, reinforcement learning
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Exploratory Behavior, Humans, Information Theory, Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review