Learning Effectiveness and Memory Size

We study learning effectiveness as a function of memory size. We quantify the maximal level that a bounded memory machine (or agent) can match (or reproduce) a long string of inputs as a function of the input length k and the memory size n. The input string is an element of Ik and the output string is an element of Jk and the loss of the agent when matching an input coordinate i ∈ I with an output coordinate j ∈ J is g(i, j). This level is expressed by a function v(p, θ) of two variables: a probability p on I and a nonnegative θ ≥ 0. The function v(p, θ) is defined as a function of the triple G = 〈I, J, g〉. It equals the minimum of EQg(i, j), where the minimization is over all distributions Q on action pairs with marginal p on I, denoted QI , and the mutual information IQ(i; j) = H(QI) +H(QJ) −H(Q) ≤ θ, where H is the entropy function. If i1, . . . , ik are iid I-valued random variables with distribution p, then for T ⊂ Jk we have Emin(j1,...,jk)∈T 1 k ∑k t=1 g(it, jt) ≥ v(p, log |T | k ). Moreover, for every finite set T of functions τ from the finite strings I∗ of I-elements to J we have Eminτ∈T 1 k ∑k t=1 g(it, τ(i1, . . . , it−1)) ≥ v(p, log |T | k ). It follows that if σ is the mixed strategy of player 1 in the infinite repetition of the stage game G that plays a k-periodic sequence i1, i2, . . ., where i1, . . . , ik are iid random variables with distribution p, then for every strategy τ of player 2 that is defined by an automaton ∗Institute of Mathematics and Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel (e-mail: aneyman@math.huji.ac.il). This research was supported in part by Israel Science Foundation grants 263/03 and 1123/06.

[1]  T. Cover,et al.  Learning with Finite Memory , 1970 .

[2]  Penélope Hernández,et al.  Optimal use of communication resources , 2006 .

[3]  T. Cover,et al.  On Memory Saved by Randomization , 1971 .

[4]  Daijiro Okada,et al.  Strategic Entropy and Complexity in Repeated Games , 1999 .

[5]  T. Cover Hypothesis Testing with Finite Statistics , 1969 .

[6]  B. Chandrasekaran Finite-memory hypothesis testing-A critique (Corresp.) , 1970, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[7]  Daijiro Okada,et al.  Repeated Games with Bounded Entropy , 2000, Games Econ. Behav..

[8]  Daijiro Okada,et al.  Growth of strategy sets, entropy, and nonstationary bounded recall , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[9]  Joel H. Spencer,et al.  Complexity and effective prediction , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  Reply to 'Finite memory hypothesis testing-Comments on a critique' by Cover, T. M., and Hellman, M. E , 1971, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[11]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[12]  Daijiro Okada,et al.  Two-person repeated games with finite automata , 2000, Int. J. Game Theory.

[13]  Martin E. Hellman,et al.  The effects of randomization on finite-memory decision schemes , 1972, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[14]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Finite-memory hypothesis testing-Comments on a critique (Corresp.) , 1970, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[15]  Abraham Neyman,et al.  Cooperation, Repetition, and Automata , 1997 .

[16]  A. Neyman Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma , 1985 .

[17]  Abraham Neyman,et al.  Finitely Repeated Games with Finite Automata , 1998, Math. Oper. Res..

[18]  Elchanan Ben-Porath,et al.  Repeated games with Finite Automata , 1993 .