Agent-state based policies in POMDPs: Beyond belief-state MDPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional approach to POMDPs is to convert them into fully observed MDPs by considering a belief state as an information state. However, a belief-state based approach requires perfect knowledge of the system dynamics and is therefore not applicable in the learning setting where the system model is unknown. Various approaches to circumvent this limitation have been proposed in the literature. We present a unified treatment of some of these approaches by viewing them as models where the agent maintains a local recursively updateable “agent state” and chooses actions based on the agent state. We highlight the different classes of agent-state based policies and the various approaches that have been proposed in the literature to find good policies within each class. These include the designer’s approach to find optimal non-stationary agent-state based policies, policy search approaches to find a locally optimal stationary agent-state based policies, and the approximate information state to find approximately optimal stationary agent-state based policies. We then present how ideas from the approximate information state approach have been used to improve Q-learning and actor-critic algorithms for learning in POMDPs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".