Solving Non-rectangular Reward-Robust MDPs via Frequency Regularization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In robust Markov decision processes (RMDPs), it is assumed that the reward and the transition dynamics lie in a given uncertainty set. By targeting maximal return under the most adversarial model from that set, RMDPs address performance sensitivity to misspecified environments. Yet, to preserve computational tractability, the uncertainty set is traditionally independently structured for each state. This so-called rectangularity condition is solely motivated by computational concerns. As a result, it lacks a practical incentive and may lead to overly conservative behavior. In this work, we study coupled reward RMDPs where the transition kernel is fixed, but the reward function lies within an alpha-radius from a nominal one. We draw a direct connection between this type of non-rectangular reward-RMDPs and applying policy visitation frequency regularization. We introduce a policy-gradient method, and prove its convergence. Numerical experiments illustrate the learned policy's robustness and its less conservative behavior when compared to rectangular uncertainty.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it