Feature Markov Decision Processes

General purpose intelligent learning agents cycle through (complex,non-MDP) sequences of observations, actions, and rewards. On the other hand, reinforcement learning is well-developed for small finite state Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). So far it is an art performed by human designers to extract the right state representation out of the bare observations, i.e. to reduce the agent setup to the MDP framework. Before we can think of mechanizing this search for suitable MDPs, we need a formal objective criterion. The main contribution of this article is to develop such a criterion. I also integrate the various parts into one learning algorithm. Extensions to more realistic dynamic Bayesian networks are developed in a companion article.Comment: 7 page

Robust Markov Decision Processes

Markov decision processes (MDPs) are powerful tools for decision making in uncertain dynamic environments. However, the solutions of MDPs are of limited practical use due to their sensitivity to distributional model parameters, which are typically unknown and have to be estimated by the decision maker. To counter the detrimental effects of estimation errors, we consider robust MDPs that offer probabilistic guarantees in view of the unknown parameters. To this end, we assume that an observation history of the MDP is available. Based on this history, we derive a confidence region that contains the unknown parameters with a pre-specified probability 1-ß. Afterwards, we determine a policy that attains the highest worst-case performance over this confidence region. By construction, this policy achieves or exceeds its worst-case performance with a confidence of at least 1 - ß. Our method involves the solution of tractable conic programs of moderate size.

Multiple-Environment Markov Decision Processes

We introduce Multi-Environment Markov Decision Processes (MEMDPs) which are MDPs with a set of probabilistic transition functions. The goal in a MEMDP is to synthesize a single controller with guaranteed performances against all environments even though the environment is unknown a priori. While MEMDPs can be seen as a special class of partially observable MDPs, we show that several verification problems that are undecidable for partially observable MDPs, are decidable for MEMDPs and sometimes have even efficient solutions

Scalable Verification of Markov Decision Processes

Markov decision processes (MDP) are useful to model concurrent process optimisation problems, but verifying them with numerical methods is often intractable. Existing approximative approaches do not scale well and are limited to memoryless schedulers. Here we present the basis of scalable verification for MDPSs, using an O(1) memory representation of history-dependent schedulers. We thus facilitate scalable learning techniques and the use of massively parallel verification.Comment: V4: FMDS version, 12 pages, 4 figure

Limit Synchronization in Markov Decision Processes

Markov decision processes (MDP) are finite-state systems with both strategic and probabilistic choices. After fixing a strategy, an MDP produces a sequence of probability distributions over states. The sequence is eventually synchronizing if the probability mass accumulates in a single state, possibly in the limit. Precisely, for 0 <= p <= 1 the sequence is p-synchronizing if a probability distribution in the sequence assigns probability at least p to some state, and we distinguish three synchronization modes: (i) sure winning if there exists a strategy that produces a 1-synchronizing sequence; (ii) almost-sure winning if there exists a strategy that produces a sequence that is, for all epsilon > 0, a (1-epsilon)-synchronizing sequence; (iii) limit-sure winning if for all epsilon > 0, there exists a strategy that produces a (1-epsilon)-synchronizing sequence. We consider the problem of deciding whether an MDP is sure, almost-sure, limit-sure winning, and we establish the decidability and optimal complexity for all modes, as well as the memory requirements for winning strategies. Our main contributions are as follows: (a) for each winning modes we present characterizations that give a PSPACE complexity for the decision problems, and we establish matching PSPACE lower bounds; (b) we show that for sure winning strategies, exponential memory is sufficient and may be necessary, and that in general infinite memory is necessary for almost-sure winning, and unbounded memory is necessary for limit-sure winning; (c) along with our results, we establish new complexity results for alternating finite automata over a one-letter alphabet