Pushdown Reward Machines for Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reward machines (RMs) are automata structures that encode (non-Markovian) reward functions for reinforcement learning (RL). RMs can reward any behaviour representable in regular languages and, when paired with RL algorithms that exploit RM structure, have been shown to significantly improve sample efficiency in many domains. In this work, we present pushdown reward machines (pdRMs), an extension of reward machines based on deterministic pushdown automata. pdRMs can recognise and reward temporally extended behaviours representable in deterministic context-free languages, making them more expressive than reward machines. We introduce two variants of pdRM-based policies, one which has access to the entire stack of the pdRM, and one which can only access the top k symbols (for a given constant k) of the stack. We propose a procedure to check when the two kinds of policies (for a given environment, pdRM, and constant k) achieve the same optimal state values. We then provide theoretical results establishing the expressive power of pdRMs, and space complexity results for the proposed learning problems. Lastly, we propose an approach for off-policy RL algorithms that exploits counterfactual experiences with pdRMs. We conclude by providing experimental results showing how agents can be trained to perform tasks representable in deterministic context-free languages using pdRMs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".