Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

On the Convergence of Bounded Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.11044 v1 pith:SMH5JMUS submitted 2023-07-20 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords agentconvergenceboundedstatewhenconvergedlearningproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

When has an agent converged? Standard models of the reinforcement learning problem give rise to a straightforward definition of convergence: An agent converges when its behavior or performance in each environment state stops changing. However, as we shift the focus of our learning problem from the environment's state to the agent's state, the concept of an agent's convergence becomes significantly less clear. In this paper, we propose two complementary accounts of agent convergence in a framing of the reinforcement learning problem that centers around bounded agents. The first view says that a bounded agent has converged when the minimal number of states needed to describe the agent's future behavior cannot decrease. The second view says that a bounded agent has converged just when the agent's performance only changes if the agent's internal state changes. We establish basic properties of these two definitions, show that they accommodate typical views of convergence in standard settings, and prove several facts about their nature and relationship. We take these perspectives, definitions, and analysis to bring clarity to a central idea of the field.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Forgetting is Everywhere

    cs.LG 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Forgetting is defined as violation of predictive self-consistency under self-generated updates, yielding the measure Γ_k(t); exact Bayesian learners are shown to have Γ = 0.

  2. Artifacts as Memory Beyond the Agent Boundary

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Artifacts in the environment can reduce the memory an RL agent needs to represent its history, as shown by a mathematical proof and experiments with spatial paths.

Pith tools