Bayesian Learning in Episodic Zero-Sum Games

We give a two-player zero-sum repeated game between a learner and nature whose value identity generates Bayesian updating and an exact accounting of exponential-weights regret at once, and supplies the comparator-class variational form that a wide class of concentration phenomena share. The terminal payoff is the most a comparator can gain at fixed relative entropy from the prior, and the one-step constraint is an information budget on nature's move under the learner's mixed action. With the learner's move otherwise unrestricted, Gibbs/Bayes weights emerge as its unique Bellman equalizer -- the mixed action that makes the per-round loss independent of which direction nature moves -- with log-partition functions playing the role of value functions. The regret decomposes exactly into three parts: a per-round information loss reflecting the variation in observed outcomes, an additive retempering drift that accounts exactly for any change of measurement scale between rounds, and the information the comparator carries relative to the prior. The variance and bounded-range proxies that drive standard regret bounds are looser relaxations of this decomposition, which holds generally and governs them all. Both players' strategies are read off from the decomposition term by term, and repeated play yields an information-theoretic ledger of self-play in place of the usual quadratic-variation surrogate. The same comparator-class geometry accounts for the classical large-deviation bounds, and methods across bandits, posterior sampling, aggregation, and boosting are specializations of the one regret decomposition.

Posterior sampling for reinforcement learning (PSRL) is one of the simplest and most effective exploration methods, but a basic question has remained open: does unmodified PSRL achieve minimax regret without structural assumptions on the prior? We answer yes. Exact vanilla PSRL is minimax optimal in leading-order Bayesian regret under arbitrary correlated priors. The difficulty is that a posterior-sampled transition model is coupled with its own continuation value. We overcome this with a common empirical transition reference that isolates the resulting value mismatch and a Bellman-based variance argument that controls it without an extra leading-order state-space factor. For finite-horizon, time-inhomogeneous tabular MDPs with unknown stochastic rewards, this yields the minimax $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{SAH^3K})$ regret rate under arbitrary joint priors over rewards and transitions. The same proof principle gives the minimax $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{H^3K})$ rate for linear-mixture MDPs under arbitrary joint parameter priors.

This note aims to serve as an entry point to the literature on learning in games, a topic with significant theoretical appeal and a wide range of applications -- from machine learning and data science to economics and beyond. Our presentation is structured around two complementary viewpoints: We first consider a single agent -- the learner -- engaged in a sequential decision process in an unknown, non-stationary, and possibly adversarial environment. We then examine what happens when the environment is shaped by the decisions of several interacting agents, not necessarily aware of each other's actions or goals, and all seeking to improve their individual rewards. In this general context, we examine a family of regularized learning policies based on best-responding to the past history of play, up to a regularization penalty intended to encourage exploration and prevent over-commitment to suboptimal choices. In the single-agent setting, we present some basic regret bounds for regularized learning in adversarial multi-armed bandits; in the multi-agent setting, we describe an ergodic equilibrium convergence result for zero-sum games in the spirit of classical results on fictitious play, as well as a "folk theorem" linking strategic and dynamic notions of stability -- Nash equilibria and attracting points of regularized learning, respectively. We pay special attention to the information available to the players and, through a unified analysis framework, we study both oracle- and payoff-based (bandit) methods. Our goal is to provide a coherent and comprehensible -- albeit, by necessity, not comprehensive -- account of some recent ideas in the field, and to discuss their implications for the study of rationality.