Model-Based Exploration in Monitored Markov Decision Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tenet of reinforcement learning is that the agent always observes rewards. However, this is not true in many realistic settings, e.g., a human observer may not always be available to provide rewards, sensors may be limited or malfunctioning, or rewards may be inaccessible during deployment. Monitored Markov decision processes (Mon-MDPs) have recently been proposed to model such settings. However, existing Mon-MDP algorithms have several limitations: they do not fully exploit the problem structure, cannot leverage a known monitor, lack worst-case guarantees for 'unsolvable' Mon-MDPs without specific initialization, and offer only asymptotic convergence proofs. This paper makes three contributions. First, we introduce a model-based algorithm for Mon-MDPs that addresses these shortcomings. The algorithm employs two instances of model-based interval estimation: one to ensure that observable rewards are reliably captured, and another to learn the minimax-optimal policy. Second, we empirically demonstrate the advantages. We show faster convergence than prior algorithms in over four dozen benchmarks, and even more dramatic improvement when the monitoring process is known. Third, we present the first finite-sample bound on performance. We show convergence to a minimax-optimal policy even when some rewards are never observable.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".