Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reinforcement learning, the objective is almost always defined as acumulativefunction over the rewards along the process. However, there are many optimal control and reinforcement learning problems in various application fields, especially in communications and networking, where the objectives are not naturally expressed as summations of the rewards. In this paper, we recognize the prevalence of non-cumulative objectives in various problems, and propose a modification to existing algorithms for optimizing such objectives. Specifically, we dive into the fundamental building block for many optimal control and reinforcement learning algorithms: the Bellman optimality equation. To optimize a non-cumulative objective, we replace the originalsummation operationin the Bellman update rule with a generalized operation corresponding to the objective. Furthermore, we provide sufficient conditions on the form of the generalized operation as well as assumptions on the Markov decision process under which the globally optimal convergence of the generalized Bellman updates can be guaranteed. We demonstrate the idea experimentally with thebottleneckobjective, i.e., the objectives determined by theminimumreward along the process, on classical optimal control and reinforcement learning tasks, as well as on two network routing problems on maximizing the flow rates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".