Distributional Reinforcement Learning with Information Bottleneck for Uncertainty-Aware DRAM Equalization
Organizations: Control Laboratory, School of Electrical Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Equalizer parameter optimization is critical for signal integrity in high-speed memory systems operating at multi-gigabit data rates. However, existing methods suffer from computationally expensive eye diagram evaluation, optimization of expected rather than worst-case performance, and absence of uncertainty quantification for deployment decisions. In this paper, we propose a distributional risk-sensitive reinforcement learning framework integrating Information Bottleneck latent representations with Conditional Value-at-Risk optimization. We introduce rate-distortion optimal signal compression achieving 51 times speedup over eye diagrams while quantifying epistemic uncertainty through Monte Carlo dropout. Distributional reinforcement learning with quantile regression enables explicit worst-case optimization, while PAC-Bayesian regularization certifies generalization bounds. Experimental validation on 2.4 million waveforms from eight memory units demonstrated mean improvements of 37.1% and 41.5% for 4-tap and 8-tap equalizer configurations with worst-case guarantees of 33.8% and 38.2%, representing 80.7% and 89.1% improvements over Q-learning baselines. The framework achieved 62.5% high-reliability classification eliminating manual validation for most configurations. These results suggest the proposed framework provides a practical solution for production-scale equalizer optimization with certified worst-case guarantees.
Figures & tables
| Method | Mean | Worst-10% | Std Dev | Time | Rel. |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ( s) | Time | |
| DR-IB-A2C | 37.1 | 33.8 | 1.42 | 167.4 | 1.0× |
| Std. Bayesian A2C | 35.2 | 24.1 | 2.87 | 162.8 | 0.97× |
| Deterministic A2C [ 29 ] | 36.8 | 30.9 | 1.89 | 158.5 | 0.95× |
| Q-learning [ 28 ] | 26.1 | 18.7 | 3.45 | 1177.5 | 7.03× |
| DDPG [ 47 ] | 15.5 | 11.2 | 2.98 | 676.9 | 4.04× |
| Method | Mean | Worst-10% | Std Dev | Time | Rel. |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ( s) | Time | |
| DR-IB-A2C | 41.5 | 38.2 | 1.68 | 186.4 | 1.0× |
| Std. Bayesian A2C | 39.4 | 28.9 | 3.12 | 181.2 | 0.97× |
| Deterministic A2C [ 29 ] | 42.7 | 29.5 | 2.34 | 176.8 | 0.95× |
| Q-learning [ 28 ] | 28.5 | 20.2 | 4.23 | 2429.5 | 13.03× |
| DDPG [ 47 ] | 21.3 | 16.8 | 3.45 | 950.1 | 5.10× |
| Latent Learning | Mean | Worst-10% | Silhouette | Recon. |
| Method | (%) | (%) | Score | MSE |
| IB Variational | 41.5 | 38.2 | 0.72 | 0.0234 |
| Standard AE | 39.1 | 33.6 | 0.58 | 0.0189 |
| AE + Classification | 40.3 | 35.8 | 0.65 | 0.0212 |
| Contractive AE | 39.8 | 34.2 | 0.61 | 0.0198 |
| RL Variant | Mean | Worst-10% | KL Div. | Conv. |
| (%) | (%) | Epochs | ||
| Distributional RL | 41.5 | 38.2 | 0.142 | 178 |
| Standard A2C | 42.7 | 29.5 | 0.387 | 203 |
| Categorical DQN | 38.9 | 32.1 | 0.198 | 245 |
| Implicit Quantile | 40.2 | 35.8 | 0.165 | 192 |
| Risk | Mean | Worst | Worst | Worst | Sharpe |
| Measure | (%) | 10% (%) | 5% (%) | 1% (%) | Ratio |
| CVaR =0.1 | 41.5 | 38.2 | 36.8 | 33.4 | 2.34 |
| Mean-Var =0.1 | 43.1 | 32.7 | 28.9 | 22.1 | 1.89 |
| Mean-Var =0.5 | 39.2 | 35.1 | 31.4 | 26.7 | 2.01 |
| Expectile =0.1 | 40.8 | 36.5 | 34.2 | 30.1 | 2.18 |
| VaR =0.1 | 39.7 | 37.1 | 33.8 | 28.9 | 2.12 |
| Distance | Mean | Worst-10% | Reward | Conv. |
| Metric | (%) | (%) | Variance | Rate |
| Sliced Wass. | 41.5 | 38.2 | 0.187 | 1.0× |
| Euclidean L2 | 40.1 | 35.4 | 0.312 | 1.18× |
| Cosine | 39.3 | 34.1 | 0.298 | 1.24× |
| Mahalanobis | 40.6 | 36.2 | 0.245 | 1.09× |
| MMD | 39.8 | 35.7 | 0.268 | 1.15× |
| Method | Train | Test | Gen. Gap | KL(Q P) |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| With PAC ( =0.001) | 40.8 | 38.9 | 1.9 | 2.34 |
| Without PAC | 43.2 | 35.7 | 7.5 | 8.97 |
| L2 Reg. ( =0.001) | 41.5 | 37.2 | 4.3 | 4.12 |
| Dropout (p=0.3) | 40.9 | 37.8 | 3.1 | 3.45 |
| Method | Clean | Noise | Noise | Adv. | Cert. |
| (%) | =0.01 | =0.05 | =0.01 | Rad. | |
| Spectral (K=1) | 41.5 | 40.8 | 38.6 | 39.2 | 0.0048 |
| No Spectral | 42.1 | 37.3 | 29.8 | 31.5 | N/A |
| Batch Norm | 41.8 | 38.9 | 33.2 | 34.7 | N/A |
| Layer Norm | 41.2 | 39.1 | 34.8 | 35.9 | N/A |
| Uncertainty | Mean | Expected | Calib. |
| Quartile | Perf. (%) | Perf. (%) | Error |
| Q1 (0–0.015) | 42.8 | 42.3 | 1.2% |
| Q2 (0.015–0.020) | 39.7 | 39.2 | 1.3% |
| Q3 (0.020–0.025) | 35.4 | 35.9 | 1.4% |
| Q4 ( 0.025) | 28.9 | 29.7 | 2.7% |
Risk-Sensitive RL
Risk-sensitive reinforcement learning optimizes policies for downside risk, tail outcomes, uncertainty, or safety constraints beyond expected reward.
See all 85 papers