Decoupled Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with State Abstraction for Discrete Grids

Qingyu Xiao; Youtian Du; Yuanlin Chang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 22 references

Decoupled Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with State Abstraction for Discrete Grids

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-level agent—a PPO goal-chooser plus a rule-based mover—with DeepMDP-style state compression outperforms flat PPO in discrete grid MDPs and POMDPs, and preserves optimality when the discount is 1.

desk verdict A sensible engineering combination of decoupled HRL, rule-based low-level control, and state abstraction, but the empirical claim is undercut by an unmasked PPO baseline and thin statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02050 v1 pith:Z6SHNSPD submitted 2025-06-01 cs.LG cs.AI

Qingyu Xiao , Yuanlin Chang , Youtian Du This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords reinforcementlearninghierarchicalstateabstractionDeepMDPPOMDPpartialobservabilitydiscretegridenvironmentsactionmasking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the main obstacle in discrete grid RL is exploration, and that a decoupled hierarchy can remove most of it without training two coupled RL stacks. Its DcHRL-SA method keeps a PPO-based high-level actor that chooses composite sub-goals—move to a cell in the local view, or move there and interact—while a hand-coded low-level policy executes the movement. A DeepMDP-style abstraction, applied to fixed-length observation histories through an LSTM, compresses the state representation (for example, from 15×26 to 60 dimensions) while reward and transition structure are trained to be preserved. The paper reports that this combination beats flat PPO on two custom grid tasks in both fully observed and partially observed modes, in final reward, convergence speed, and stability, and it proves that the hierarchical policy class still contains an optimal policy when the discount factor is 1.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite sub-goal space $G = \{g_{i,j,k} \mid (i,j) \in O,\ k \in \{0,1\}\}$, where $(i,j)$ is a cell in the local observation window and $k$ says whether to move only or move and interact. Because each primitive action is a degenerate composite goal, the high-level policy's action space covers the flat action space, which is the fact the $\gamma = 1$ optimality-preservation proof leans on. The second piece is the DeepMDP-style abstraction $\phi(\cdot)$: an LSTM reads a fixed-length history $h_t = (o_{t-l}, a_{t-l}, \ldots, o_t)$ (or the state itself in MDP mode) and is trained with reward and transition prediction losses $L_{\mathrm{bisim}}(\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3)$, forcing abstract states that agree on rewards and next abstracts. The validity-checking function $F(o,g)$ then masks out unreachable targets and interaction targets with no interactive object, so the learner only samples feasible sub-goals.

What would settle it

Measure the executor's completion rate on all valid sub-goals in the two grids; a single valid composite goal that the rule-based policy cannot complete falsifies the stated guarantee that it dynamically generates the optimal action sequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a decoupled hierarchical mechanism—where the learned part plans only over goals and a deterministic rule-based controller handles execution—preserves the flat problem's optimality while making exploration much easier, and that a bisimulation-style abstraction of observation histories makes the representation smaller without changing the decision problem. The optimality argument runs through the goal space: because the sub-goal set $G$ contains every primitive action as a special case (a one-step move, or interact at the current cell), any flat policy can be mimicked by the hierarchy, so when $\gamma = 1$ an optimal hierarchical policy exists whenever a flat optimum exists. Empirically, the paper asserts that on a 16×16 key-and-door grid and a 12×12 multi-item collection grid, DcHRL-SA consistently beats PPO in cumulative reward and convergence, with the abstraction component contributing the dimensionality reduction and faster early improvement rather than large final-score gains.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the hand-coded low-level policy executes every valid composite sub-goal flawlessly from any reachable state; if it ever fails, the high-level policy's choices do not mean what the learner believes, and the reported comparison against flat PPO would no longer test the hierarchy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the hierarchy is as beneficial as reported, discrete grid RL can be made sample-efficient by shifting low-level control out of the learned loop entirely, leaving the policy to choose among interpretable goals.
In POMDPs, a fixed history length of $l=15$ compressed through an LSTM into a DeepMDP-consistent latent appears sufficient for goal selection in these tasks, suggesting that long-memory architectures may not be needed when the abstraction preserves reward and transition information.
The action mask over composite goals converts exploration from picking raw actions into picking feasible local objectives, which should cut wasted steps in any environment where target cells and interactable objects are visible.
The optimality-preservation result implies that goal decomposition, on its own, does not restrict what can be achieved in undiscounted finite-horizon discrete tasks, so downstream hierarchy designs can start from this decomposition without a representability cost.
State dimensionality reduction from a 15×26 feature space to 60 latent dimensions, if it transfers, points toward scaling the same decoupled design to larger grids where flat PPO would need many more samples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural measurement to add when reproducing the method is the executor's per-sub-goal completion rate; the paper does not report it, and a nonzero failure rate would change how the empirical advantage should be attributed.
The optimality argument is stated for $\gamma = 1$, while the experiments use $\gamma = 0.997$; carrying the guarantee to the discounted case would need an extra argument.
In a new domain the designer must supply the validity-check function $F(o,g)$ and the interaction semantics, so the exploration gain is partly a transfer of domain knowledge into the goal mask; learning that mask from data is a plausible next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea—let a PPO high-level actor choose composite sub-goals (move to a cell, or move and interact) that a rule-based low-level policy executes, with a DeepMDP-style abstraction on top—is a sensible, practical assembly of known parts. I don't see this exact combination in the literature, and the explicit goal space of 2*W*W position-action pairs is a clean fit for discrete grids. The paper also does something right: it isolates the abstraction component by comparing DcHRL against DcHRL-SA, and it honestly reports that abstraction gives only a modest final-score gain but better convergence. The plots agree with that.

The soft spots are mostly on the empirical side, and one is load-bearing. The PPO baseline is not given the same action mask as the hierarchical methods. The paper even cites Huang & Ontañón [17], which shows masking materially improves policy-gradient agents on exactly these grid environments. Without a masked-PPO control, the large gaps in Table II (0.0 vs 5.2) are confounded. Maybe the hierarchy genuinely helps, but we can't tell from these numbers. The missing seed counts and the zero standard deviation in the MDP PPO row make it worse—there's no way to know how much noise is in the comparison. Hyperparameters were tuned on the same tasks, which is minor but worth noting.

The theoretical appendix does not rescue the empirical claim. The proof assumes γ=1 while experiments use 0.997, and the argument basically says that if the goal space covers the primitive action space, then an optimal flat policy can be expressed as a hierarchical policy. That's true but nearly tautological, and it says nothing about what the trained PPO high-level policy actually achieves. I'd treat the optimality-preservation claim as a formal containment property, not a performance guarantee.

The rule-based low-level executor is another unexamined assumption. It's asserted to generate optimal movement action sequences; no success rate or failure modes are reported. For this framework to work in larger or partial-observable grids, that executor has to be reliable. The history length l=15 and the LSTM encoding are similarly taken as sufficient without evidence.

Who is this for? Practitioners working on discrete grid RL who want a pragmatic recipe rather than a deep theoretical result. It deserves a serious referee because the assembly is reasonable and the research question is legitimate, but it needs major revision: add a masked-PPO control, report seeds and variance, state the executor's reliability, and either fix the proof's gamma assumption or stop claiming the theory covers the experiments.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decoupled hierarchical RL framework (DcHRL-SA) for discrete grid environments. A PPO-based high-level actor selects composite sub-goals from a goal space over an egocentric observation window; a hand-crafted rule-based low-level policy executes movement/interaction sequences. A DeepMDP-style state abstraction with an LSTM encoder compresses observation histories into a low-dimensional latent state, and an action-mask mechanism filters invalid sub-goals. The authors claim, with a formal appendix, that the decoupled hierarchy preserves the existence of an optimal policy when the discount factor is 1, and they report experiments on two custom grid environments (DoorKey-16x16 and a Multi-Item collection grid) comparing PPO, DcHRL, and DcHRL-SA in both MDP and POMDP modes. The paper concludes that DcHRL-SA consistently outperforms the PPO baseline in cumulative reward and convergence efficiency.

Significance. If the claims were fully substantiated, the contribution would be a modest but useful engineering advance: decoupling the high-level RL policy from a rule-based low-level controller avoids training a second RL policy, and the DeepMDP-style abstraction visibly reduces the state dimension (Table II). The comparison of DcHRL vs DcHRL-SA is a clean way to isolate the abstraction component, and the authors state that code will be released. The theoretical preservation claim is a genuine attempt to justify the hierarchical decomposition. However, the central empirical claim that the method 'consistently outperforms' PPO is currently not established because the baseline may be handicapped relative to the proposed method, and the statistical basis is not reported. The theoretical result is also narrower than the experiments, since it addresses only γ=1 while the experiments use γ=0.997.

major comments (4)

[Section II.C and Tables II-III] The main empirical claim is confounded by the action-mask mechanism. Equation (7) applies invalid-action masking to DcHRL and DcHRL-SA, but there is no indication that the baseline PPO receives the same masking. Reference [17] is cited precisely because invalid-action masking materially changes policy-gradient performance in discrete action spaces, so the 5.2-point gap in DoorKey and the large gaps in Table III could be largely or entirely due to the mask rather than to the decoupled hierarchy or state abstraction. The authors should add a masked-PPO control and report head-to-head results with the mask applied uniformly.
[Tables II and III] No number of seeds or independent runs is reported, and Table III reports a PPO MDP score of −263.81 ± 0.00. A zero standard deviation suggests either a single run or a deterministic evaluation, which is not stated. Without seed-level statistics and at least a paired significance test, the claimed advantages in final score, convergence speed, and stability cannot be assessed. The paper should report the number of seeds, per-seed curves or summary statistics, and a significance test for the DcHRL-SA vs DcHRL comparisons.
[Appendix and Section II.C] The theoretical preservation claim does not cover the experimental setting. The proof in the appendix explicitly assumes γ=1 (Eq. A.4 and the surrounding text), while all experiments use γ=0.997 (Table I). Moreover, the proof's decomposition in Eq. (A.5) requires that the intermediate distribution on the optimal trajectory lie in the discrete goal set G, and the only justification is the closing assertion that the goal space 'fully covers the base action space.' That containment is about primitive actions, not about optimal waypoint state distributions, and no argument is given that G contains the optimal intermediate points u*_i in the sense used in the proof. As written, the proof establishes an existence statement for a special undiscounted setting and does not support the implemented γ=0.997 experiments. The authors should either state the theorem with its actual assumptions and scope, or provide a proof that covers the discounted setting.
[Section II.B and II.C] Two load-bearing assumptions are asserted without evidence. First, the low-level rule-based policy is claimed to 'dynamically generate the optimal movement action sequence' (Section II.C), but no success rate, failure mode analysis, or theoretical justification is provided for execution under partial observability; if the executor can get stuck or execute an incorrect interaction in a substantial fraction of states, the entire comparison against flat PPO is undermined. Second, the fixed history length l=15 together with the LSTM is treated as a sufficient statistic for the POMDP, but no evidence or argument is given that this captures the belief state. The paper should report low-level execution success rates and include an ablation or sensitivity analysis for l.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains a stray ', ,' and a duplicated '∀a ∈ A, ,' in the displayed text; the notation should be cleaned up.
[Eqs. (3)-(4)] The abstraction loss writes R_{θ1}(φ_{θ3}(s), a) and P_{θ2}(φ_{θ3}(s), a), but the text says the mapping, reward, and transition networks are jointly optimized over θ1, θ2, θ3; the composition of parameters should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity about which parameters are updated.
[Section II.B] The history h_t is defined in Eq. (1) as a sequence of observations and goals, but the text above Eq. (3) defines it as an observation-action history. This inconsistency makes it unclear whether the abstraction is trained on goal sequences or action sequences; please unify the notation.
[Section II.C] The phrase 'optimal movement action sequence' is used to describe the low-level policy, but no optimality criterion is given and no citation or proof supports global optimality of the rule-based controller; a statement of what 'optimal' means here would avoid confusion.
[Tables II and III] The 'State Dimension' entries are not self-explanatory: for PPO and DcHRL the entry is '15 × 26' while for DcHRL-SA it is '60'; the meaning of the product and of the abstract dimension should be defined in the table caption or text.
[Fig. 4] The text says DcHRL-SA's step curves 'start to decline earlier ... as additionally marked in Fig. 4', but the marking is not visible or described in the caption; please indicate the region or add an annotation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical claims are experimental comparisons, and the optimality-preservation claim follows by a stated containment property rather than by assuming the conclusion.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the paper's derivation chain. The central empirical claim—that DcHRL and DcHRL-SA outperform PPO—is established through reported experiments on custom grid environments, not through fitting the outcome into the method's definitions. The hyperparameters are tuned in preliminary experiments, but this is normal experimental practice and does not make the final cumulative rewards a fitted artifact of the loss functions. The optimality-preservation claim in Section II.C and the Appendix rests on the explicit premise that the hierarchical goal space 'fully covers the basic action space,' so the hierarchical policy class can degenerate into a flat decision-making process. This is a representability argument by construction: it shows that an optimal flat policy is contained in the hierarchical policy class, which is a logical consequence of the stated design, not an importation of the conclusion into the premises. The DeepMDP abstraction loss is taken from an external reference, optimized on data, and then used as a representation-learning objective; the reported scores are not algebraically forced by that loss. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited works on goal-based HRL, DeepMDP, invalid-action masking, and data augmentation are all external. The methodological concern that the PPO baseline may lack the same invalid-action masking is a fairness and control issue, not a circularity: the paper does not define the proposed method's performance in terms of the baseline's output, and no equation reduces the claimed advantage to an identity or to a fitted parameter. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new entities. It rests on the determinism assumption for the bisimulation constraint, the sufficiency of a fixed-length history, and the reliability of the hand-coded low-level policy. The hand-tuned hyperparameters and the unreported lambda in the abstraction loss are the main free parameters.

free parameters (6)

dim(Z) (abstract state dimension) = 60 (DoorKey), 25/40 (Multi-Item MDP/POMDP)
Chosen per environment in preliminary experiments; directly sets the capacity of the state abstraction and the input size to the high-level policy.
lambda (bisimulation loss weight) = not reported
Appears in Eq. (3) weighting transition-prediction error against reward-prediction error; its value is omitted from Table I, so the balance is uncontrolled.
History length l = 15
Length of observation-action history for the LSTM in POMDPs; tuned manually.
Training frequency TF and abstraction batch size Bs = TF=30, Bs=384
How often the abstraction is trained per timestep and the minibatch size; tuned manually.
PPO hyperparameters (lr, gamma, lambda_GAE, epsilon, Bs) = 0.0001, 0.997, 0.95, 0.2, 256
Standard PPO settings 'tuned through preliminary experiments' on the same environments (Section III.B).
Observation window size W (goal space parameter) = 5 (DoorKey), 7 (Multi-Item POMDP)
Determines the goal space size 2*W*W; derived from environment egocentric view size.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Deterministic transition assumption for DeepMDP bisimulation.
Eq. (2) states 'Under the assumption of deterministic transitions, where each state-action pair uniquely determines the next state'; if the environment has stochastic interactions, the constraint may not be satisfied.
standard math Principle of optimality with additive rewards and gamma=1.
Appendix Eqs. (A.3)-(A.7) decompose the optimal trajectory at intermediate states; this is valid under the Markov property and additive rewards, but its application to the discrete goal set requires reachability.
domain assumption Fixed-length history (l=15) is a sufficient statistic for POMDP decision-making.
Section II.B encodes observation-action histories with an LSTM; the paper gives no guarantee that l=15 captures all necessary information for the multi-item grid under partial observability.
domain assumption Action validity function F(o,g) correctly identifies reachable targets and interactive objects from the egocentric view.
Section II.C defines the mask rules; under partial observability the local window may miss obstacles or objects, so the mask may remove valid sub-goals or keep invalid ones.
ad hoc to paper An optimal intermediate state distribution lies in the discrete goal space G.
Appendix Eq. (A.5) and the statement 'when g1 equals to an optimal point u*_1' require the true optimal point to be one of the 2*W*W goals, which is not shown.
domain assumption Rule-based low-level policy can execute any composite action sequence exactly.
Section II.C assumes the low-level policy 'dynamically generates the optimal movement action sequence'; no failure handling or success rate is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoupled Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with State Abstraction for Discrete Grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6SHNSPD

@misc{pith2026250602050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoupled Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with State Abstraction for Discrete Grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6SHNSPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02050}
}

read the original abstract

Effective agent exploration remains a core challenge in reinforcement learning (RL) for complex discrete state-space environments, particularly under partial observability. This paper presents a decoupled hierarchical RL framework integrating state abstraction (DcHRL-SA) to address this issue. The proposed method employs a dual-level architecture, consisting of a high level RL-based actor and a low-level rule-based policy, to promote effective exploration. Additionally, state abstraction method is incorporated to cluster discrete states, effectively lowering state dimensionality. Experiments conducted in two discrete customized grid environments demonstrate that the proposed approach consistently outperforms PPO in terms of exploration efficiency, convergence speed, cumulative reward, and policy stability. These results demonstrate a practical approach for integrating decoupled hierarchical policies and state abstraction in discrete grids with large-scale exploration space. Code will be available at https://github.com/XQY169/DcHRL-SA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02050 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Visualizations of the discrete grid environments used in experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Score curves of different methods in the MiniGrid DoorKey environ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Training performance under different methods in MDP and POMDP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[17]

A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,

S. Huang and S. Ontañón, "A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms," in Proc. Int. FLAIRS Conf. , vol. 35, May

work page
[1]

PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imita- tion multi-agent learning,

G. Sartoretti et al., "PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imita- tion multi-agent learning," IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2378–2385, Jul. 2019. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2019.2903261

work page arXiv 2019
[2]

A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for intelligent manufac- turing with autonomous mobile robots,

A. Agrawal, S. J. Won, T. Sharma, M. Deshpande, and C. McComb, "A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for intelligent manufac- turing with autonomous mobile robots," Proc. Design Society , vol. 1, pp. 161–170, Jul. 2021. doi: 10.1017/pds.2021.17

work page doi:10.1017/pds.2021.17 2021
[3]

A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for cooperative load frequency control of multi-area power systems,

Z. Yan and Y . Xu, "A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for cooperative load frequency control of multi-area power systems," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., early access, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TP- WRS.2020.2999890

arXiv 2020
[4]

Why generalization in RL is difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and implicit partial observability,

D. Ghosh, J. Rahme, A. Kumar, A. Zhang, R. P. Adams, and S. Levine, "Why generalization in RL is difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and implicit partial observability," in Proc. NeurIPS, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Managing engineer- ing systems with large state and action spaces through deep re- inforcement learning,

C. P. Andriotis and K. G. Papakonstantinou, "Managing engineer- ing systems with large state and action spaces through deep re- inforcement learning," Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. , Apr. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.036

doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.036 2019
[6]

Hi- erarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation,

T. D. Kulkarni, K. R. Narasimhan, A. Saeedi, and J. B. Tenenbaum, "Hi- erarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation," in Proc. NeurIPS , vol. 29, pp. 3682–3690, Dec. 2016

work page 2016
[7]

The option-critic architecture,

P.-L. Bacon, J. Harb, and D. Precup, "The option-critic architecture," in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. , vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2017. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10916

doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10916 2017

Show all 22 references

[8]

Hierarchical reinforcement learning with central pattern generator for enabling a quadruped robot simulator to walk on a variety of terrains,

T. Watanabe et al., "Hierarchical reinforcement learning with central pattern generator for enabling a quadruped robot simulator to walk on a variety of terrains," Sci. Rep. , vol. 15, no. 1, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-94163-2

2025 doi
[9]

Hierarchical reinforcement learning based on planning operators,

J. Zhang and K. Ramirez-Amaro, "Hierarchical reinforcement learning based on planning operators," arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14237 , Jan

arXiv
[10]

Towards a unified theory of state abstraction for MDPs,

L. Li, T. J. Walsh, and M. L. Littman, "Towards a unified theory of state abstraction for MDPs," in Proc. ISAIM, Jan. 2006

2006
[11]

DeepMDP: Learning continuous latent space models for representation learning,

C. Gelada, S. Kumar, J. Buckman, O. Nachum, and M. G. Bellemare, "DeepMDP: Learning continuous latent space models for representation learning," in Proc. ICML, pp. 2170–2179, May 2019

2019
[12]

Learning invariant representations for reinforcement learning without reconstruc- tion,

A. Zhang, R. McAllister, R. Calandra, Y . Gal, and S. Levine, "Learning invariant representations for reinforcement learning without reconstruc- tion," arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10742 , 2020

2006 arXiv
[13]

Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs,

D. Silver and J. Veness, "Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs," in Proc. NeurIPS, vol. 23, pp. 2164–2172, Dec. 2010

2010
[14]

Memory-based deep rein- forcement learning for POMDPs,

L. Meng, R. Gorbet, and D. Kulic, "Memory-based deep rein- forcement learning for POMDPs," in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS) , pp. 5619–5626, Sep. 2021. doi: 10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636140

2021
[15]

Recurrent model-free RL can be a strong baseline for many POMDPs,

T. Ni, B. Eysenbach, and R. Salakhutdinov, "Recurrent model-free RL can be a strong baseline for many POMDPs," arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05038, 2021

2021 arXiv
[16]

Approximate information state for approximate planning and reinforcement learning in partially observed systems,

J. Subramanian, A. Sinha, R. Seraj, and A. Mahajan, "Approximate information state for approximate planning and reinforcement learning in partially observed systems," arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08843 , 2020. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2010.08843

2010 doi arXiv
[18]

Reinforcement learning with augmented data,

M. Laskin, K. Lee, A. Stooke, L. Pinto, P. Abbeel, and A. Srinivas, “Reinforcement learning with augmented data,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , vol. 33, pp. 19884–19895, Dec. 2020

2020
[23]

+ max π2 dπ2 (u∗ 1, u∗ 2) + · · ·+ max πm dπm(u∗ m, ue) (A.7) Finally, since the proposed method’s goal space fully covers the base action space, it can degenerate into a flat decision- making process under worst-case conditions, thereby ensuring policy optimality
[2022]

doi: 10.32473/flairs.v35i.130584

doi
[2023]

doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.14237

doi arXiv
[2024]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13831

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13831. APPENDIX Proof. The notations used in this proof are summarized as follows: • S = {s1, s2, . . . , sn}: the finite set of n discrete environ- ment states. • A = {a1, a2, . . . , am}: the finite set of m possible actions. •...

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,

S. Huang and S. Ontañón, "A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms," in Proc. Int. FLAIRS Conf. , vol. 35, May

work page

[2] [1]

PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imita- tion multi-agent learning,

G. Sartoretti et al., "PRIMAL: Pathfinding via reinforcement and imita- tion multi-agent learning," IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2378–2385, Jul. 2019. doi: 10.1109/LRA.2019.2903261

work page arXiv 2019

[3] [2]

A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for intelligent manufac- turing with autonomous mobile robots,

A. Agrawal, S. J. Won, T. Sharma, M. Deshpande, and C. McComb, "A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for intelligent manufac- turing with autonomous mobile robots," Proc. Design Society , vol. 1, pp. 161–170, Jul. 2021. doi: 10.1017/pds.2021.17

work page doi:10.1017/pds.2021.17 2021

[4] [3]

A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for cooperative load frequency control of multi-area power systems,

Z. Yan and Y . Xu, "A multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method for cooperative load frequency control of multi-area power systems," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., early access, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TP- WRS.2020.2999890

arXiv 2020

[5] [4]

Why generalization in RL is difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and implicit partial observability,

D. Ghosh, J. Rahme, A. Kumar, A. Zhang, R. P. Adams, and S. Levine, "Why generalization in RL is difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and implicit partial observability," in Proc. NeurIPS, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [5]

Managing engineer- ing systems with large state and action spaces through deep re- inforcement learning,

C. P. Andriotis and K. G. Papakonstantinou, "Managing engineer- ing systems with large state and action spaces through deep re- inforcement learning," Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. , Apr. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.036

doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.036 2019

[7] [6]

Hi- erarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation,

T. D. Kulkarni, K. R. Narasimhan, A. Saeedi, and J. B. Tenenbaum, "Hi- erarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation," in Proc. NeurIPS , vol. 29, pp. 3682–3690, Dec. 2016

work page 2016

[8] [7]

The option-critic architecture,

P.-L. Bacon, J. Harb, and D. Precup, "The option-critic architecture," in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. , vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2017. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10916

doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10916 2017