Learning Symbolic Representations for Reinforcement Learning of Non-Markovian Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many real-world reinforcement learning (RL) problems necessitate learning complex, temporally extended behavior that may only receive reward signal when the behavior is completed. If the reward-worthy behavior is known, it can be specified in terms of a non-Markovian reward function - a function that depends on aspects of the state-action history, rather than just the current state and action. Such reward functions yield sparse rewards, necessitating an inordinate number of experiences to find a policy that captures the reward-worthy pattern of behavior. Recent work has leveraged Knowledge Representation (KR) to provide a symbolic abstraction of aspects of the state that summarize reward-relevant properties of the state-action history and support learning a Markovian decomposition of the problem in terms of an automaton over the KR. Providing such a decomposition has been shown to vastly improve learning rates, especially when coupled with algorithms that exploit automaton structure. Nevertheless, such techniques rely on a priori knowledge of the KR. In this work, we explore how to automatically discover useful state abstractions that support learning automata over the state-action history. The result is an end-to-end algorithm that can learn optimal policies with significantly fewer environment samples than state-of-the-art RL on simple non-Markovian domains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".