We establish the first finite-time logarithmic regret bounds for the self-tuning regulation problem. We introduce a modified version of the certainty equivalence algorithm, which we call PIECE, that clips inputs in addition to utilizing probing inputs for exploration. We show that it has a $C \log T$ upper bound on the regret after $T$ time-steps for bounded noise, and $C\log^3 T$ in the case of sub-Gaussian noise, unlike the LQ problem where logarithmic regret is shown to be not possible. The PIECE algorithm is also designed to address the critical challenge of poor initial transient performance of reinforcement learning algorithms for linear systems. Comparative simulation results illustrate the improved performance of PIECE.

We consider the problem of controlling an unknown stochastic linear system with quadratic costs -- called the adaptive LQ control problem. We re-examine an approach called ``Reward-Biased Maximum Likelihood Estimate'' (RBMLE) that was proposed more than forty years ago, and which predates the ``Upper Confidence Bound'' (UCB) method, as well as the definition of ``regret'' for bandit problems. It simply added a term favoring parameters with larger rewards to the criterion for parameter estimation. We show how the RBMLE and UCB methods can be reconciled, and thereby propose an Augmented RBMLE-UCB algorithm that combines the penalty of the RBMLE method with the constraints of the UCB method, uniting the two approaches to optimism in the face of uncertainty. We establish that theoretically, this method retains ${\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T})$ regret, the best known so far. We further compare the empirical performance of the proposed Augmented RBMLE-UCB and the standard RBMLE (without the augmentation) with UCB, Thompson Sampling, Input Perturbation, Randomized Certainty Equivalence and StabL on many real-world examples including flight control of Boeing 747 and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. We perform extensive simulation studies showing that the Augmented RBMLE consistently outperforms UCB, Thompson Sampling and StabL by a huge margin, while it is marginally better than Input Perturbation and moderately better than Randomized Certainty Equivalence.