What type of inference is planning?
Authors: Miguel Lazaro-Gredilla
Li Yang Ku
Kevin Patrick Murphy
Dileep George
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 spotlight (2024)
Keywords: planning
variational inference
belief propagation
message passing
Primary area: probabilistic_methods
TL;DR: In the context of planning we use variational inference to compare inference types, and to create a novel belief propagation-like algorithm for factored-state MDPs.

Abstract: Multiple types of inference are available for probabilistic graphical models, e.g., marginal, maximum-a-posteriori, and even marginal maximum-a-posteriori. Which one do researchers mean when they talk about ``planning as inference''? There is no consistency in the literature, different types are used, and their ability to do planning is further entangled with specific approximations or additional constraints. In this work we use the variational framework to show that, just like all commonly used types of inference correspond to different weightings of the entropy terms in the variational problem, planning corresponds _exactly_ to a _different_ set of weights. This means that all the tricks of variational inference are readily applicable to planning. We develop an analogue of loopy belief propagation that allows us to perform approximate planning in factored-state Markov decisions processes without incurring intractability due to the exponentially large state space. The variational perspective shows that the previous types of inference for planning are only adequate in environments with low stochasticity, and allows us to characterize each type by its own merits, disentangling the type of inference from the additional approximations that its practical use requires. We validate these results empirically on synthetic MDPs and tasks posed in the International Planning Competition.

What type of inference is planning?
Miguel Lázaro-Gredilla
Li Yang Ku Google Deepmind
Kevin P. Murphy
Dileep George
(lazarogredilla, liyangku, kpmurphy, dilepggorgg)@@ooggee.com
Abstract
Multiple types of inference are available for probabilistic graphical models, c.g., marginal, maximum-a pootteriro,,, and even marginal aeximumm-a-postriinn Which one do researchers mean when they talk about "planning as inference"? There is consistency in the literature, different types used, and their ability do planning is further entangled with specific approximations or additional constraints. In this work we use the variational framework show that, just like all commonly used types of inference correspond to different weightings of the entropy terms in the variational problem, planning corresponds exactly to different This means that all the tricks of variational inference are readily applicable to planning. We develop an analogue of loopy belief propagation that allows us to perform approximate planning in factored-state Markov decisions processes without incurring intractability due to the exponentially large state space. The variational perspective shows that the previous types of inference for planning are only adequate environments with low stochasticity, and allows us characterize each type by its own merits, disentangling the type of inference from the additional approximations that practical use requires. We validate these results empirically synthetic MDPs and tasks posed in the International Planning Competition.
of weights.
1 Introduction
There are many kinds of probabilistic inference, such as marginal, maximum-a-posttrroon (MAP), or marginal MAP (MMAP) that used in the planning inference literature (Attias, 20033 Levine, 2018; Cui et al.. 2019 Palmieri et al., 2022, Wu and Khardon, (022).. In this work we show that planning is a distinct type of inference, and that under stochastic dynamics does not correspond exactly with any of the above methods. Furthermore, we show how to rank the above methods in terms of quality as it pertains to planning.
Our approach based on a variational perspective, which allows direct comparison between different inference types, and to develop analogues of existing approximate inference algorithms for this "planning inference" task. Given the "flat" Markov Decision Process (MDP) from Fig [[eft] we show that planning inference provides the same (exact) results as value iteration. Using analogue of loopy belief propagation (LBP), we show how to apply approximate planning inference to the factored MDP in Fig. T Right], which has an exponentially large state space, and for which exact solutions are no longer tractable. Under moderate stochasticity in the dynamics, we show that this approximate planning inference might be superior to other more established types of inference.
2 Background
2.1 Markoy Decision processes (MDPs) and notation
A Markov decision process (MDP) is tuple (,I.A,((E),PPRRTTT where X is the state space, A an action space with cardinality N., p(z1) the starting state distribution, P the
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

Q1
Persle .s)
P(a
P
Plat
Muniiss
P
P
ARta
ARE
A
Figure 1: Factor graphs: [Left] Standard MDP [Right] Factored MDP with sparse factor connectivity.
transition probabilities (1,, (i.e., the dynamics of the process), (2,, at I(+1) the reward for transitioning from I, 2141 under action a, time step and T is the horizon. For simplicity of exposition we will consider discrete states and actions, but analogous results apply in the continuous case. Solving MDP corresponds to finding policy xz (ac (xx)) that maximizes the expectation of (a function of) the sum of the reward at each time step. The optimal policy can be different at each time step, i.e., non-stationary. We do not use discount factor, but it can be trivially included in the reward function, since it is also non-stationary. Policies, states and actions at all time steps will be noted π = (0, M x = {at)T=1 and a = {a.)(=1'
In a facte-factored MDP (factored MDP for short), each state factorizes into Ne r.V. or entities {x.") y, each with cardinality N., it has an exponentially large state space of size N&Ne Tran- sitions factorize as P(zz+1lae xx) = I P(= pa(() .ay), where 2)p(() is the subset of on which 2 depends, which we will assume to be small to allow for tabular definition of the transi- tion without exponential cost (pa(t) stands in for "parents of (") ). For simplicity of notation, we will assume that the reward of factored MDPs at each time step depends only on the current state, and for tractability, that it can be decomposed in multiple additive subterms R, (x,)) Di=N.41 No+N. (2, (2."())).
where 2t ma(ii) small subset of I₁ on which the (i - reward depends, for a total of N, reward subterms. As before, this allows for compact tabular representation of the reward. Including additional dependencies in the reward (on actions, or on the next state of an entity) is straightforward.
For a more comprehensive introduction to MDPs, refer to (Puterman, 2014 Sutton, 2018
2.2 Variational inference
Let's consider running different types of inference in the unnormalized factor graph shown in Fig. Left]. Marginal inference would compute the sum over all the æ, a configurations (the partition function); MAP inference would compute the maximizing configuration (the posterior mode); and marginal MAP (MMAP) inference (see Liu and Ihler, 2013) would find the assignment of a that conditional on that Although marginal, MAP, and MMAP inference are distinct, a lot shared. They all target a "quantity of interest" (c.g.. partition function, maximum probability state, best conditional partition function); they all produce distribution result of inference (respectively, full posterior, delta at the mode, best conditional posterior); naive computation requires number of summations and/or maximizations exponential in the number of variables; and finally, they can all be represented as a variational inference (VI) problem The VI representation naturally leads to efficient message-passing solutions and approximate inference algorithms, as we show below.
maximizes the summation
For the factor graph f(x, a) from Fig. I Left], the VI problem is max,(m,a (log f(x a))g(mra)) H (x, a) where q(2, a) an arbitrary variational distribution over the variables of the factor
Just like in undirected graphical models, the different types of inference are well-defined despite lack of normalization. Table the precise definitions including two reasonable definitions of marginalization. We assume familaarity with variational inference, see (Jordan et al., 1999) for an introduction.
In this work we will the standard VI notation for expectation, where Egco) written ())(e))

---

Table 1: Different types of inference from a variational perspective, including proper "planning" inference type. They all share the same energy term (g( defined Eq. 33. and differ only in the entropy term. The closed-fome expressions provide the optimal value of the bound, but are generally intractable. The general tractability of the bound maximization for MDPs is marked in the column. All bounds are monotonically related, and listed in descending order, except the last two, whose relative ordering only applies when dynamics are deterministic. See Section 4.1 for details.
Type inference
Closed form for quant. of interest Fx = max, (q)
Entropy term H (q) for variational bound Tr Fx(4) = }( (-Ex(q) + (4))
Margina
log Σz. P( (
Hạ(r1) + Σ Hg (1 ae)
Planning
max= log (e ((ala)a(ala))
Ha(x1) + Hg (Z at,
M. MAP
maxa log Ee P(x a a)e AR(m)))
H₂(z)) + D
H (1 a.) -H,(a)) X
MAP
max log P( ale ae AR(m.a) log Σz. P(x(a)
Marginal
AR(z,a)
1₂(x1) (H
log Na)
No
graph, the term -log f(x a)) is known as the energy term, and H (æ. a) is a particular entropy choice that will determine the inference type. It is standard result, (e.g., Jordan al., 1999) that using the Shannon entropy Hg Hz, a) results in marginal inference. Setting it to zero (aka the terperrrmerr limit) corresponds to MAP inference (Weiss et al., [012] Sontag al., 2011 Wainwright et al., (005) Kolmogorov, (2005 Martins et al., 2015). Setting it to the conditional entropy (x/aa) H, a) (a) results in MMAP inference (Liu and Ihler, 2013 Note that the only difference across VI problems is the weighting of the entropy terms.
Despite the similarities, the computational complexity of these types of inference can differ signif- icantly, even for tree-structured graphs. In particular, the entropy term for MMAP is not concave, and inference is NP-hard (Liu and Ihler, 2013), whereas for marginal and MAP inference the entropy term is concave (the energy term is always linear), and inference is polynomial.
Methods
In this section we introduce our VI framework, which we will use to derive novel linear programming formulation of planning problems, novel value belief propagation (VBP) algorithm and novel closed form (sampling-fie approach to determinization.
3.1
VI for standard MDPs
The main quantity of interest in this paper is the best exponential utility, which we will refer to simply as the utility. Given an MDP with horizon T and a risk parameter >>> O, the utility is defined as
T-1 Relai, (t. P(xi)
T-1
polamning X
log max Σ exp A
II 2m1
P( la,, (e (rt) (1)
x max (oggexp(AA[eee a))) ((ala))a)aa)
where P(zla)= P(x1) I P(2411a, R(x,a) ΣT. Re(æ, au Te41), and TTa x) II=-1 (arlzx)).
Observe that we can always set À + 0+ to recover the standard planning setting in which seek the best expected additive reward, so here we are tackling a strictly more general case. To be precise. we take the limit L.planning = limx-so poplamning max (R(x, a)) (()la))(aaa)) (Marthe et al., 2023).
The motivation for the introduction of X is two-fold. On the hand, by using more general formulation of the reward, we can trade off between risk neutral (A - 0t) and risk-sceking (A > 0)
"Two types of marginal inference are included for precision. "Marginal" refers to marginal inference directly applied on the same exact factor graph as the other types of inference. Because the factor graph lacks a prior over a, it is not properly normalized joint distribution. Adding a uniform prior over the actions resolves this and results in "Marginal"". Both are constant apart and are of independent interest.
3

---

policies, adding a tunable parameter that makes the model more flexible, see (Marthe et al., 2023 Föllmer and Schied, 201T Shen al., 2014) for more details. On the other hand, it allows to express the expected reward as proper factor graph: note that Eq. ① can be expressed as a product of factors involving not only the dynamics terms, also the reward terms, allowing us to write as FX = log max Σx,a f(z, a a) where f(z, a) is the factor graph of Fig. Left]. This factorization would not have been possible if we had simply used an additive reward. But the same time, notice that by setting + 0 Alternatively, we could have achieved a factorized model by introducing an additional latent "selector" variable connected to all the rewards, but this would complicate upcoming formulation and analysis. Furthermore, this formulation allows us to encompass prior work on planning as inference that uses À > O.
not losing generality. since the additive reward case can be recovered
We can turn this new quantity of interest, the utility, into the solution of VI problem on the factor graph of Fig. [eft]. Crucially, the factor graph includes the known dynamics and rewards terms, but not any policy term, since the policy is the outcome of inference.
Theorem (Variational formulation of planning)- Given known dynamics P( (ss Jt), an initial distribution P(x1) and reward functions Re(Ts. at, 1. the best exponential utility Fx Eq. can be expressed as the result of concave variational optimization problem
paplumning from
Fx
pokammnng
max I. 9
plamming (q);
Eohanning (q)
FX
(xxx(q)) pi (q))
(2)
with energy (x(g) and entropy Holauning (q) terms
Ex(g) (log P(x1))
(log P(xtt1la,, + ARe a, Tt+1 21+1)
T-1
Hplaminss (q) = Hx1 +
Σ 2a
(4)
where q = q(zz a) is arbitrary distribution over the space of states and actions.
Proof is in Appendix A This entropy thus corresponds to "planning inference". The optimal policy each time step corresponds to the optimal variational distribution g g(a,[24). Table T lists the types of inference problems and their associated entropies (see Appendix For their derivation and corresponding references). As we will discuss in Section 4 they display monotonic ordering (in almost all cases).
The VI problem Eq. 2 reduces the standard one when À 1, and extends VI in a meaningful way in the presence of rewards, regardless of the type of inference used: rewards interact in an additive way when - 0+, rather than the default multiplicative (or more precisely, exponentiated summation) interaction of X = 1. Furthermore, it turns out that it is possible to take the x + 0+ limit exactly, to obtain the dual I.P formulation of an MDP (Puterman,
Corollary 1.1 (Additive limit). In the limit - 0+, the concave problem Eq. following linear program (LP):
becomes the
T-1 Σ
Folonning X-
= max Exilannins 2- (q) max (e(
(R ar De+ Plecna
S.I. q(x1)= P(r1);
Σ (g( 04+1) Σ
(1441l0,, Vt:
Gr-1
g(x,)) Σ g( ar) Vt: g(z,, 2 Vt,
ae
which corresponds to the maximum expected reward Felanning maxxxxxxxaaa.aa (taaatt See Appendix B for proof.

---

3.2 LP and VBP for factored MDPs
Factored MDPs (e.g., Fig. Rightt] are loopy factor graphs with an exponentially large state space, so the previous approaches cannot be applied directly. An effective approximate marginal inference approach for this type of problem is loopy belief propagation (LBP). Since planning is now seen as a type of inference, we can create an analogue to LBP which we call value belief propagation (VBP).
Following LBP, make two approximations Eq. make it tractable.
First, we replace the variational distribution q with secudo-marginale q. Eqs. 3 and never access the full joint (x, a), but only the local marginals of each factor. Pseudo-marginals are the collection of such local distributions, consistent at each variable, but not necessarily marginals of any distribution. Just like q is defined in convex region called the marginal polytope M,, q is defined in an outer convex region called the local polytope L that contains M (Weller et al., 2014).
Second, we replace the entropy Hplanning (q)
with its Bethe approximation
T-1
No
No+N,
Hplanniig
Hg
(1)
Σ
(1)
Fa(()
aa)
Σ To(op((1))
where I = - (x is the mutual information of the parents of 2:(4) see Appendix for details. This approximation is tractable as long as the factors (transition and rewards) are tractable, typically by connecting to small number of parent variables. Note that the policy (which would connect to all the state variables in time slice and introduce exponential cost) not a factor in the graph.
The term (=: is key. It always non-negative but neither concave nor convex in general and can be interpreted as the mutual information correcting the discrepancy between (a) the entropy of collection of variables considered independently (as the output of the previous time step) and (b) the entropy of the same collection when considered jointly (as parents for the current time step). makes the optimization problem harder, but also more accurate.
For non- factfad MDPs, (a((((())) = and á = Q. so we recover Eq. ( In general factored MDPs this is not true. We can still choose ignore this correction to obtain a concave bound
No
T-1 +Σ
concave
(
Σ H HG
(4) pa(s) H
( a ...)
Hplanning (Φ)
(5)
Then, the planning Bethe approximation of the variational bound and its concave upper bound
Splanning
A
max pplanning
A
(7) maxx Ā
1
Ex ( + pllanning (7) 8.1. q E &
(6)
Golanning max plaamning max
1
Ex + H Hlplanning
s.l. q E L.
(7)
We see that Fplanning 2 Aplanning and Aplanning 2 Fplanning, The former is trivial given the negative term removed. The latter follows from (a) switching the optimization domain from M to L M. which can only increase the value the bound, and (b) Eq. (5) corresponds to Eq. 4 but with joint entropies over entities replaced with sums of the entropies, which is upper bound. The fact that F jolanning (g) is concave and upper bounds the exact utility has advantages:
be computed without local minima problems, and it is an admissible heuristic of the original utility, meaning that it heuristic for algorithms that emit a certificate of optimality or infeasibility.
can be used
Lemma ( (Additive limit for factored MDPs). In the limit X + 0+,, the concave problem Eq. becomes the following VI LP:
NN.
holanning X-0+
max foplamning (7) max Σ
Σ
(Re
S.I. ((x10) (0)) = ((x (0)) Vi; EEC
g(x(1))
(6)
Σ (( pa(()
pa(l))
as ar)g(at ,a) (. t1 1i15 N,
5

---

which upper bounds the max. expected reward Evlamning Folauning -max (R(x, a)) (( T C
Alternatively, the same expression can be obtained from Corollary 7.J by relaxing the marginal polytope into the local polytope. Since it is a relaxation, the upper bounding is trivial.
To the best of our knowledge, this is a novel VI formulation and it can be used to tractably (over) estimate the optimal expected reward in factored MDPs. Similarities with (Koller and Parr. 1999. Guestrin et al., 2003) are only surface level, see Section 5
foplamming ( from Eq. (7) can be maximized with a conic solver (or an LP solver if À - 0+). The non-concave Fylammine (q) from Eq. (6) is more challenging. Conveniently, Fphaniig (q) looks just like the Bethe free energy that motivates LBP, but with a different weighting of the local entropy terms.
Multiple works consider modifying the entropy weighting in LBP, usually with the aim of "con- cavifying" the overall entropy term and developing convergent alternatives to LBP. In particular, (Hazan and Shashua, 2010) provide fixed-point message updates for arbitrary entropy weights. For the specific weighting of Hplmeeie (q) the message updates approach singularity, which will planning
avoid by using (1 - E) H Bethe (q)) well-defined for any >> O, interpolate between "planning inference" and marginal inference, and can get arbitrarily close to the former by making e + 0+. This smoothing is not just a mathematical convenience, but we prove that it exactly corresponds MaxEnt RL in Appendix E See (Liu and Ihler, 2013) for an analogous technique with the same purpose (but without this nice interpretation).
( + Bethe marginil
Bethe (q). The resulting message passing algorithm updates
VBP inherits many of the properties of LBP: the message updates are not guaranteed to converge, but they do, they do so at fixed point of Eq. (6). Convergence can be improved by the use of damping and annealing. The precise message updates for the general case are provided in Appendix D
Ne Computation associated with VBP scales expected, OTT O <E==
N.NV +1 + Di=N,+1 N! )),
where N.. N,. NY, Nv have been defined in Section 2.1 Note that the derivation is straightforward. Each VBP iteration involves computing message updates for each factor in the graph. The cost is dominated by the blue factors (N, of them per time step) and green factors (N, of them per time step) in Fig. Right). There total of T time steps. And finally the number of possible configurations is N,N pa00++ for blue factors and pa for green factors.
3.3 VBP for standard MDPs
It is instructive to look at the VBP updates for a standard, non-factored MDP. In this case, it is possible to take the limit 0+ and get well-defined updates. For X = and single reward at T
Backward updates: ms(ør) e Rr(er); mx())) max Qxx;;
0,
Forward updates: my(x1) P(z1); mi(F++1) Σ p(z++1 ( ae aa, 22
argmax. m(+()))
Optimal dist.: q( It, ae) x m0(2x+1)p(xe)) at 0 a()
where Q( ax) = EE,,, mM(24+ )p(x0+1 [xt, az) and 6j.1 is standard Kronecker delta that equals 1 when j = i and 0 otherwise. Iterating these updates converges in single backward and forward pass to the global optimum. The backward messages correspond to the value function (hence the name VBP), and the familiar intermediate quantity (x2,,a0 az) matches the Q-function. The forward messages correspond to occupancy probabilities under the optimal policy. Thus, in a non-factored MDP we recover the standard Bellman backups, implementing value iteration and providing the exact solution. The same happens, conceptually, in factored MDP, but only approximately, with the forward messages helping to determine where the backward approximation should be more precise.
3.4 Determinization in hindsight
The previous presentation implies that all VI tricks are now applicable to planning. As an example, we can show that for determinization (Yoon et al., 2008) (a technique from the planning literature to extend deterministic planning algorithms to stochastic domains, and that is usually computed via sampling), we can obtain precise upper bound as the solution of tractable concave problem.

---

planning UB (for factored To be more precise, we can compute F planning (for MDPs) and "x=1
MDPs) as concave optimization problem (avoiding sampling) when the inner deterministic planning problem is solved with an LPP MAP relaxation (exact for MDPs). Additionally, we can prove that for factored MDPs 1 R < jocct planning UB (i.e., the superiority of the bound introduced here wrt this determinization upper bound in the case of factored MDPs). See Appendix H for further details.
The different types of inference and their adequacy for planning
4.1 Ranking inference types for planning
As we show in Section 5 the term "planning as inference" has been used in the literature to refer to different inference types, none of which corresponds, to the best of our knowledge, with the "planning inference" from this work, which is exact. aasoei]as each type of inference to a corresponding lower bound on its quantity of interest. Turns out that by inspecting the entropy term (since the energy is the same for all of them), we can also relate those lower bounds to one another for a given
FMP (q)
variational distribution q. resulting in
S FFXMAP(a)) S
F-llannig (q) S
F
Fmargginll (q).
Fmuangnaal (q)
This in turn means that for the optimal variational distribution of each type of inference we have
EMPP
MMAP
plaanning
margggnall
(8)
X
See Appendix G for proof. VI aims to maximize a lower bound on the quantity of interest, with tighter bounds generally indicating better performance. Since MMAP is, among the lower bounds, the tightest, it follows that MMAP inference is expected to be no worse and potentially better than all other common types of inference. However, noted in Section 2.2 MMAP inference is particularly hard, even in trees, meaning that in the case of non-factorial MDP like the one in Fig. [L the computation of FMMA is intractable, even though all the other quantities, including the one of interest, FX Fplanning are exactly computable. What we can tractably compute is the lower bound F (MMMA((q) S FAMAP and try to maximize it wrt q, but without guarantees of finding the optimal value. Thus, among the common inference types, MMAP seems a better choice, but it is either intractable or, if using VI, can run into local minima problems. This seems more acceptable in the factored MDP case, but it is disappointing that the problem persists for standard, non-factored MDPs.
4.2
The stochasticity of the dynamics is key
The energy term Eq. which is common all inference methods, contains subterms (log P( ((ze41/0,,20) 22)) 1.7()a)) (and (log P(x1))/(2)) for the first state). When dynamics are deter- ministic (which we assume to also imply that P(x1) is deterministic, i.e., the first state is known), this forces the optimal variational conditional to be (1 xx) P( [e,, 21) (and q(21) P(x1) for the first state), since any other choice would make those subterms, and therefore the bound, -00. This affects the relationships of the quantities of interest, which are now (proof in Appendix
marginnal F X
< <PMAP
=1 M-MMAP E-planning < I
and justifies the use of MAP and MMAP inference as planning when dynamics are deterministic. When using approximate inference, if dynamics are close deterministic, it might make more sense to choose the type of inference based on the quality of the approximation, rather than its tightness. If dynamics are stochastic, the suboptimality of MMAP can be explained as a lack of reactivity to the environment. Indeed, if we reduce the planning problem to non-reactive policy π (a, (z)) = 7 (a;) we recover MMAP inference as optimal. We test this experimentally in Section 6 and further expand MAP has the same problem, but additionally lacks integration over observation
on it in Appendix 122 sequences ("trajectories"), Even with deterministic dynamics, marginal inference might not produce good utility estimates, but its action posterior will be proportional to the reward of the action sequence, so if we additionally assume exp ())(()))) E {0, 1} (i.e., pure planning where we want to attain any of a subset of states), it will produce optimal planning choices. Interestingly, our framework also shows that marginal inference exact for a generalization of MaxEnt planning when the policy entropy regularization is set to 1/2, regardless of stochasticity, see Appendix E
7

---

Related work
As stated, the meaning of "planning as inference" uneven across the literature. (Toussaint and Storkey, (006) introduce the policy in the MDP factor graph and maximize the likelihood wrt to its parameters using E.M. This is an exact approach, although it is more appropriate to say that is planning as learning rather than type of inference, since the EM process updates the parameters of the factor graph and inference typically operates on graph with fixed parameters. (Levine, 2018) is well-known reference that considers MAP inference for standard planning and marginal inference for MaxEnt planning (Ziebart, 2010). Both are exact only under deterministic dynamics. This problem is addressed in the case of standard planning, but pursued for MaxEnt planning. To achieve exact MaxEnt planning under stochastic dynamics, a modified marginal inference procedure is provided. It can be seen as structured variational inference where g 1 [2,, a2) ( ) forced. With the right smoothing, our VBP corresponds to MaxEnt planning, and extends this modified marginal inference the factored case, see Appendix E.3 (Cui al., 2015) introduces ARollout, which can be seen as running a sigle-forward-par pass LBP to approximate marginal inference for each possible initial action, and then choosing the highest scoring initial action and applicable to factored MDPs. In the follow-up works (Cui and Khardon, 2016; Cui et al., 2019) the authors develop conformant SOGBOFA, which approximates marginal-MAL inference by using ARollout an inner loop and gradient descent to optimize over the action prior in an outer loop. A number of refinements added for superior performance. This is a strong baseline and was the runner-up in the international probabilistic planning competition (IPPC) 2018, which agrees with our analysis from Section 4 (Lee al., 2014, Lee et al., (016)) provide initial results on the connection between conformant planning and MMAP inference. Many works, such as (Attias, 2003) choose MAP inference for planning.
Two frameworks (Palmieri al., 2022; Wu and Khardon, 2022) have been recently introduced to analyze planning from a message- message-passing perspective. The former analyzes six update rules and their qualitative effect on the plans; the latter focuses on disentangling the inference directior (either forward -from causes to outcomes or backward ffrom outcomes to causes-) from the approximation type. This work provides two novel message-passing algorithms for factored MDPs: MFVI (mean field VT) and CSVI (collapsed state VI), using the planning tasks from IPPC 2011 I as benchmark. We will compare with their results in Section 6
Influence diagrams (Matheson, 2005 Shachter, 2007) are used to represent general decision problems, and various approximate inference approaches have been developed, e.g., (Lee al., 2018 Lee
'If the choice of initial action included the inference process (rather than in an outer loop), becomes an MMAP problem. However, this is "degenerate" MMAP problem with a single maximization variable. show this degeneracy, consider a non-factored MDP. Exact ARollout is tractable in the non-factored case. In contrast, exact SOGBOFA is not tractable even in the non-factored
all dccision variables. "Note that the term inference direction may be mislcading: the authors establish direct equivalence between forward and MMAP inference, and between backward and marginal inference, regardless of the direction in which messages passed or any other considerations (R. Khardon, personal communication, Oct 2024).
because it maximizes
"EaaCi Statning (f pammmn)
Advantage of chosen action vs, best action
MMAP ( (Fomn))
S0GBOTA, CC"[ENVV (ENNIA
3 Exoct morginal (F (freagea
1 ARollout (. (froguff
7 Fonet MAP (1RMA))
VBP (frlema curs)
WWU (fitaee oun)
Vi CVX T ours!
Normalized entropy,
Normalized entropy,
Figure 2: Performance of different types of inference on factored MDPs as a function of their level of stochasticity (normalized entropy). [Left] Estimation error of the best utility. Lower is better. [Right] Advantage of the next action prescribed by a method vs. optimal planning. Higher is better.
8

---

et al.. 2020). Closest to our work, (Cheng et al., 2013, Chen et al., 2015) tackle graph-based based MDPs, similar factored MDPs, but with factorized action space: multiple actions are taken at each time step, each locally affecting a single entity. This locality results in additional efficiencies, so direct application to a state-only-factoreed MDPs would still result in exponential cost.
LP formulations for the solution non-stationary, finite-horizon MDPs have received significant attention over the last decade (e.g., Kumar et al., 2015 Bhattacharya and Kharoufeh, 2017, Altman, 202T; Bhat et al., 2023). but they lack a variational perspective and do not generalize easily to handle state-factored MDPs. The LPs in (Koller and Parr, 1999; Guestrin et al., 2003] Malek al., 2014) on the other hand do handle factored MDPs and have closer connection to our work. The problem setup slightly different, MDPs, which allows us to use local non-stationary policies. More importantly, their computational cost can be significantly higher than in this proposal. E.g., (Guestrin al., 2003) Section 4.2.1) 1) states that the cost is dependent on the variable elimination order. In the optimal case (which is NP-hard to find), it scales exponentially with the width of the cost network, which is based on the dependencies between entities, and can be much larger than exponential in the number of parents (our case).
MDPs with a stationary policy in their case vs our finite horizon
6 Empirical validation
Synthetic MDPs We generate 5, 000 synthetic factored MDPs structured in Fig. Right with random dynamics, all-or-nothing reward at the last time step, and controlled normalized entropies,
defined as HMDP Eia..,, ((p(=[2112..00 E [0, 1]. See Appendix I.1 for more details.
N. N,N,N," N. log N,
They are purposefully small so that we can compute Fmarggnal "
MMPPP ÆMMAP, Filanning exactly, even though they are intractable in general. We also compute Fmmarginal (tractable), and ÆMMAP (tractable bound, generally intractable optimization), which correspond to ARollout (Cui et al., 2015 and optimal SOGBOFA-I.C* (Cui et al., 2019), respectively. Finally, we include VBP (tractable, imperfect optimization of Epllamning (q)) and the tractable VI LP Explaningg and VI CVX folanning
Fig. [ Sihows the effect of stochasticity in the estimation of the utility [Left] and the next best action [Right]. For high stochasticity, VBP, even if approximate, dominates all other types of inference.
The concave upper bounds jpplunning and Explanning also improve over exact MMAP but not as much as VBP. For low stochasticity, exact MAP and MMAP dominate VBP. The (intractably optimal) SOGBOFA-LC* remains close to the exact MMAP. These results agree well with the theory and observations laid out in Section 4 We see good correlation between the accuracy of the utility estimation and the quality of the planning choices ([Left] and [Right] panels). ARollout and exact marginal seem to be an exception to this; this is explained in Section 4.2 for pure planning problems, with low stochasticity both methods are a constant away from the right utility and make good choices.
Reactivity avoidance We craft multi-entity MDP in which the agent controls the level of reactivity (see Section 4.2) needed to solve the environment, but is penalized for lower ones. VBP keeps the reactivity at a maximum, to achieve a reward of 1. SOGBOTA-LC* "aware" that it cannot plan reactively (despite replanning), takes step to reduce it, getting reward of 0.33. See Appendix I.2
International probabilistic planning competition tasks (IPPC) We follow (Wu and Khardon, 2022) and compare on the same tasks and with the same methods. We use the 6 different domains from IPPC201 1, each with 10 instances (factored MDPs) of increasing difficulty, with given dynamics and (stationary) rewards, 40-step episodes, and mildly stochastic dynamics. As baselines, we use
MFVI-Bwd (Wu and Khardon, 2022), CSVI-Bwd (Wu and Khardon, 2022), ARollout (F (argaginall see Cui et al., 2015), and SOGBOFA-LCC IC ( (FMMAP, see Cui al., 2019). We provide details about these competing methods in Appendix 1.3 From our proposed variational framework, we usd VI
(Eplanning). ) and V (pplanning)
Fig. 3 shows the average cumulative reward for all domains and methods. Four domains are highly deterministic (HMDe < 0.05), but planning inference manages to be competitive wrt the best baselines.
"Code at https: //github...t.... com htap://oggleddeemidddd///// deepmind/uhat tathatttttt__.teteeet type_off.fff.....pptppp..pp. _f _ii.frenneeeiieee pis__pssspppnnnn *Setting Ā= 0 can result in degeneracy problems, so use small value instead, see Appendix L.3

---

Average curolattiv rewerd
MFV.-ed CSVI Bec
cumalative
(Fizred))
SOGBOFA-LC (
VI LP o oans
VBP ( pieeess surs)
Random
teaching,
M
Average cumulattee reward
Average cumulative reward
-2
-17
Cross ng
instance
Ave age curn attre reward
age reward
Game life domain instance index
Sysad domain instance index
Figure 3: Cumulative rewards 6 problem domains from the ICAPS 2011 IPPC. A small horizontal jitter was introduced all data points for visual clarity. Each cumulative reward is averaged over 30 simulations per instance. Datasets ordered from left right and top to bottom by increasing normalized entropy levels. Only the last two have a significant stochasticity level >5%.
The other two are Game of Life and SysAdmin, which have an average MMDP of 0.18 and 0.23 respectively. We notice a significant advantage of our proposals wrt the most sophisticated method, SOGBOFA-LC (EMMAP). This is consistent with our expectation of MMAP degrading with increased stochasticity (see Section 4). Elevators is well known for its challenging rewards (Cui et al., 2015) and the only one for which ARollout performs noticeably worse. In this domain, VBP manages to match or exceed SOGBOFA-LC on most instances. Overall, we observe that VBP more consistent across varying stochasticities, matching the performance of the best method for each dataset. None of these domains reach the larger stochasticity levels shown in Fig. 2 where VBP dominates. LP also performs generally well, although not well VBP due to the missing mutual information See Appendix [.3 for details.
mentioned in Section 3.2
7 Discussion
The variational framework offers a powerful tool to analyze and understand how different existing types of inference approximate planning, the key role of stochasticity, what the ideal type of inference for planning is, and how to design new approximations. We hope that the introduced perspective will further the understanding of existing methods and lead to novel planning algorithms.
10

---

Acknowledgements
We thank Roni Khardon, Junkyu Lee, and the anonymous referees for their feedback on an earlier version of this paper, which helped us to improve its clarity and presentation.
References
Altman, Eitan (2021). Constrained Markov decision processes. Routledge.
Attias, Hagai (2003). "Planning by probabilistic inference". In: International workshop on artificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, pp. 9-16.
Bareinboim, Elias and Judea Pearl (2016). "Causal inference and the data-fusion problem". In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.27, pp. 7345-7352.
Bhat, Sanjay P. Veeraruna Kavitha, Nandyala Hemachandra, al. (2023). "Finite-Horize Constrained MDPs With Both Additive And Multiplicatiie Utilities". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07834.
Bhattacharya, Amnb and Jeffrey P Kharoufeh (2017). "Linear programming formulation for non- stationary, finite-horizon Markov decision process models". In: Operations Research Letters 45.6, pp. 570-574.
Chen, Feng, Qiang Cheng, Jianwu Dong, Zhaofei Yu, Guojun Wang, and Wenli Xu (2015). "Efficient approximate linear programming for factored MDPs". In: International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 63, pp. 101-121.
Cheng, Qiang, Qiang Liu, Feng Chen, and Alexander T Ihler (2013). "Variational planning for graph-based MDPs" " In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26.
Cui. Hao, Thomas Keller, and Roni Khardon (2019). "Stochastic planning with lifted symbolic
trajectory optimization". In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning
and Scheduling. Vol. 29, pp. 119-127.
Cui, Hao and Roni Khardon (2016). "Online Symbolic Gradient-Bast -Based Optimization for Factored Action MDPs." " In: IJCAI, pp. 3075-3081.
Cui, Hao, Roni Khardon, Alan Fern, and Prasad Tadepalli (2015). "Factored MCTS for large scale stochastic planning". In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 29. 1. Cui. Hao Jackson, Radu Marinescu, and Roni Khardon (2018). "From stochastic planning to marginal MAP". In: Advances Neural Information Processing Systems 31.
Föllmer, Hans and Alexander Schied (2011). Stochastic finance: an introduction in discrete time. Walter de Gruyter.
Geffner, Hector and Blai Bonet (2022). A concise introduction to models and methods for automated planning. Springer Nature.
Guestrin, Carlos, Daphne Koller, Ronald Parr, and Shobha Venkataraman (2003). "Efficient solution algorithms for factored MDPs". In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19, pp. 399-468. Hazan, Tamir and Amnon Shashua (2010). "Norm-pree -orr-ptruuuct belief propagation: Primal-dual message- passing for approximate inference". In: IEEE Trunsactions on Information Theory 56. pp. 6294 6316.
Helmert, Malte (2006). "The fast downward planning system". In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 26, pp. 191-246.
Hoffmann, Jörg and Bernhard Nebel (2001). "The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search". In: Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14, pp. 253-302.
Jordan, Michael I, Zoubin Ghahramani, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Lawrence K Saul (1999). "An introduction to variational methods for graphical models". In: Machine learning 37, pp. 183-233 Koller, Daphne and Ronald Parr (1999). "Computing factored value functions for policies in structured MDPs". In: IJCAI. Vol. 99, pp. 1332-1339.
Kolmogorov, Vladimir (2005). "Convergent tree-reweighted message passing for energy minimiza- tion". In: International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Staristies. PMLR, pp. 182-189. Kumar, Atul. Veeraruna Kavitha, and Nandyala Hemachandra (2015). "Finite horizon risk sensitive MDP and linear programming". In: 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, pp. 7826-7831.
Lee, Junkyu, Alexander Ihler, and Rina Dechter (2018). "Join Graph Decomposition Bounds for Influence Diagrams." In: UAI, pp. 1053-1062.
Lee, Junkyu, Radu Marinescu, and Rina Dechter (2014). "Applying marginal map search to proba- bilistic conformant planning: Initial results". In: Workshops at the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
11

---

Lee, Junkyu, Radu Marinescu, and Rina Dechter (2016). "Applying Search Based Probabilistic Inference Algorithms to Probabilistic Conformant Planning: Preliminary Results." " In: ISAIM. Lee, Junkyu, Radu Marinescu, Alexander Ihler, and Rina Dechter (2020). "A weighted mini-bucket bound for solving influence diagram". In: Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, pp. 1159- 1168.
Levine, Sergey (2018). "Reinforcement learning and control as probabilistic inference: Tutorial and review". In: arXiv preprint arXiv: 11885500909
Liu, Qiang and Alexander Ihler (2013). "Variational algorithms for marginal MAP", In: Journal of Machine Learning Research 14, pp. 3165-3200
Malek, Alan, Yasin Abbasi- Yadkori, and Peter Bartlett (2014). "Linear programming for large-scale
Markov decision problems". In: International conference machine learning. PMLR, pp. 496- 504.
Marthe, Alexandre, Aurélien Garivier, and Claire Vernade (2023). "Beyond Average Reward in Markov Decision Processes". In: Sixteenth European Workshop on Reinforcement Learning. Martins, André FT, Mário AT Figueiredo, Pedro MQ Aguiar, Noah A Smith, and Eric P Xing (2015).
"Ad3: Alternating directions dual decomposition for map inference in graphical models". In: The Journal of Machine Learning Research 16.1, pp. 495-545.
Matheson, James E (2005). "Decision analysis= decision engineering". In: Emerging Theory, Methods, and Applications. INFORMS, pp. 195-212.
Palmieri, Francesco AN, Krishna R Pattipati. Giovanni Di Gennaro, Giovanni Fioretti, Francesco
Verolla, and Amedeo Buonamno (2022). "A unifying view of estimation and control using belief propagation with application to path planning". In: IEEE Access 10, pp. 15193-15216. Pearl, Judea (2012). "The causal foundations of structural equation modeling". In: Handbook of structural equation modeling, pp. 68 91.
Perron, Laurent and Vincent Furnon (Mar. 7, 2024). OR-Tools. Version v9.9. Google. URL: https:
//developers google com/ http///ottiiiio/////moo
Puterman, Martin L (2014). Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming.
John Wiley & Sons.
Rubenstein, Paul K, Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers, Joris M Mooij, Dominik Janzing, Moritz
Grosse-Wentrup, and Bernhard Schölkopf (2017). "Causal consistency of structural equation
models". In: arXiv preprint 1rXiv:1707.008))
Sanner, Scott (201 1). ICAPS 201 international probabilistic planning competition. URL: https
//users.ces cecs. anu. edu au/" sssaner 2011/
Shachter, Ross D (2007). "Model Building with Belief Networks and Influence Diagrams". In:
Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, 177-201.
Shen, Yun, Michael J Tobia, Tobias Sommer, and Klaus Obermayer (2014). "Risk-sensitive reinforce- ment learning". In: Neural computation 26.7, pp. 1298-1328. Sontag. David, Amir Globerson, and Tommi Jaakkola (2011). "Introduction to dual decomposition for inference". In.
Sutton, Richard S (2018). "Reinforcement learning: An introduction".. In: A Bradford Book. Toussaint, Marc and Amos Storkey (2006). "Probabilistic inference for solving discrete and continu- ous state Markov Decision Processes". In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning. pp. 945-952
Wainwright, Martin J, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Alan S Willsky (2005). "MAP estimation via agreement on trees: message-passing and linear programming". In: IEEE transactions on information theory 51.11, pp. 3697-3717.
Weiss, Yair, Chen Yanover, and Talya Meltzer (2012). "MAP estimation, linear programming and belief propagation with convex free energies". " In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.5288
Weller, Adrian, Kui Tang, Tony Jebara, and David A Sontag (2014). "Understanding the Bethe approximation: When and how can it go wrong?" In: UAL pp. 868-877.
Wu, Zhennan and Roni Khardon (2022). "Approximate Inference for Stochastic Planning in Factored Spaces". In: International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models. PMLR, pp. 433 444. Yedidia, Jonathan S, William Freeman, and Yair Weiss (2005). "Constructing free-energy approxi- mations and generalized belief propagation algorithms". In: IEEE Transactions on information theory 51.7, pp. 2282-2312.
Yoon, Sung Wook, Alan Fern, Robert Givan, and Subbarao Kambhampati (2008). "Probabilistic planning via determinization in hindsight." In: AAAI, pp. 1010-1016.
12

---

Ziebart, Brian D (2010). Modeling purposeful adaptive behavior with the principle of maximum causal entropy. Carnegie Mellon University.
13

---

A Proof of the variational formulation of planning
In this proof we will use two identities, the first is the variational identity (Jordan al., 1999):
log Σ f(x a) max (log f(x, a)) + H()(z,a))
(9)
((.0a)
and the second is
max Σ a((a) log x(a) = max ((((a)) - KL(((a)|=((a)) = [gla)loggle (10)
[(a)
which follows because the term (a) is arbitrary distribution that can make the KL divergence exactly zero (by choosing T(a)= = q(a)). With this we can proceed to the main proof:
T-1
polanning
max log Eexp exp
A
Ra s(,11) P(ni) ((+1))(((11)
II P(a--1la 24)
T-1
Eq.
max
log (((1)
exp(A ar 14
+ (((xx, a))
X
((
(-Ex(q) + Ha(a, a)) +
Σ
flog (ayl (
max
X F.
t=1
(-Ex(q) (1((11) +
M MILL
00101) + (max(log te (aal
max
Eq. 10
max
(xx(()) + (1((11)
Hg + (llg ((o
X max
Ex(g) + (x1 +
Hz (a
max
Ex)) Hpllaning (q)
max F
Fplamning (q):
9
where we additionally see that we have chosen Ty (o, g(a,) therefore, the optimal policy will be Te (e xx) = q² (at (rn) where q" is the value of that maximizes F (q).
B Proof that for + 0+ the variational bound turns into an LP
Let us rewrite the concave optimization functional Eq. energy and entropy terms into KL divergences:
2 (derived in Appendix A) by combining the
polanning (q)
1
Ex(q)
Hplonning (q) = 1 (-KL(((()))P((a)))
T
(KT,g(2e+11le, a:) ((eee + (ARe a, F,, (141)))
(1, Rettaa Σ
1=1
KL(g())))P(a))) ΣT= +I- (K (il (
X
polanning (q) -o (for bounded It is clear that if any of the KL terms are larger than O, then limx-a+ + A rewards), whereas if KL terms are O, the limit is finite. That means that maximize the bound wrt in the X + O+ limit, we will choose y(21) P(x1) and g(#+41 (az, az) = P( |at, az), which allows remove the KI. terms and results in the (constrained) LP optimization of Corollary I.I (which also explicitly includes the marginalization constraints M).
14

---

C
Derivation of the planning Bethe entropy for factored MDPs
The standard Bethe entropy of a factored MDP (Yedidia al., 2005 such the one in Fig. 4 is:
N Hg
N.
Bethe
+
Bethe (aane(gaz.oo amxoo)
Σ
H (a( (1)
pa(s) HglFe41 2f0()
aa) (2( ai))
where we use pa(f) to refer to the "parent" variables. To simplify notation, when E 1,..., No, pa( the collection variables on which the distribution # depends according to the dynamics model, but when i NN. + I..,,,,44 N:
Ny, ma((f) is the collection of variables on which the )- reward depends. See also Fig. 4 for clarification on the notation of parents of dynamics and rewards.
The Bethe entropy above defined, for conciseness, in terms of the Bethe entropy of subset of the variables in a single time slice (current state and action, but not next state):
No Heethe (Lm) -(1 - (a))(((a) _
N. Σ
(z ..1)+ +
Hg(s,
N=
No+
Hg (z + Σ Hx
kEpa(i)
Finally, the Bethe entropy of the states of factored MDP
No+N,
BBethe =
Σ Hg
(x)
(1)
Σ
(Ha(afals))
Σ (x(x(())
kEPa(s)
No
No+Nr
Σ
Hy Hy(x
11)
where (z. is the mutual information among the parents of variable 2++1-
(1)
Note that all the Bethe entropy definitions are linear combinations of standard Shannon en- tropies defined over subsets of variables in the factor graph. The subsets are defined by the factor graph, as groups of variables connected by the same factor. The idea of the Bethe en- tropy approximation is to sum the entropies of all such subsets and then discount the "over- counted" entropy corresponding to variables that appear in multiple subsets. The pseudo-marginals = [ pa(1) az ( U (/= -I=,.=N++M, are all the local distributions that correspond to each factor. The pseudo-marginals are locally consistent at the variables, i.e., two pseudo-marginals that contain the same variable should provide the same marginal for that vari- able. However, there is no further need for consistency, and in particular, they do not need to correspond to the marginals of global joint distribution. The (convex) domain of -aaginnas contains the (also convex) domain of the marginals, but it is larger, so switching from marginals to paagio-marginals in any optimization problem relaxes it and provides an upper bound the original optimization problem. See (Weller et al., 2014) for more details. For convenience, we have also defined some subsets of the pseudo-marginals: J (o(() i=N) U (a(()p(r)) prE +N. and q... (g(x:-a0)) pa(t)
ME NoN.+NN
Since the planning entropy is a linear combination of the standard entropy of the factor graph H marrgnna))))) and two local entropies per time step, simply approximate each Shannon entropy
15

---

by its corresponding Bethe entropy to get the Bethe planning entropy
Hplanning ()) (q)
H muriinall
Hg( H,g at)
Bethh (Tw:) H Bethe (m
Bethe
No Σ H
No+
Σ
H Hg 44
pa(1) ( a.)
Σ
Tg(
H Epplnniin (g)-
Note that we sometimes use the superscript marginal for consistency with the main text, but the marginal entropy is simply the standard entropy so that superscript can be safely dropped.
D Value BP message updates
We are interested in optimizing the cost function
X 4
max
FA ( + mmarginal
Bethe
(Ø) + (1
Frplanning (7)
Bethe
As saw in Appendix C over small subsets of variables defined by the factor graph, therefore so is their linear combination. This score function can be seen as standard Bethe free energy with non-standard entropy weightings. We can directly derive LBP-like message updates by using these modified weights instead (Hazan and Shashua, 2010), resulting in the following VBP message updates
pa (q) and Lipinninng (g) are linear combinations of local entropies
Q(= po(
Σ
(i) (1 1p(# art pu(s) .a))
.44) =
=
mb(zza(0) pa(s))
Σ
(Q(afat1) .a:) (a))))
Q(a at)
(ar) Σ
me(af pa(t)) (mb(a (mo((tati))) )
mo(a(u((tt
(1)))
(ar) II
m (k)) (at)
Q(1fatt)) au an) (0o)) $ (a()))))) platf1lep ,.a))
me(x(11)
(o(
(zf(a(1)
pa(s) (1)fa())).0) ar)
m((afa(())
II
(4)
(x(()))
n4
kEPa(i)
ni
(0) (x())) mr(
II
my
(4) (x((0)
towards parents of entity i
mb (0) (x()))= = Σ
mm(appa pa(t)
n (2r(t)) from parents of entity
{m] (2) Tans
(2(2)))
II
Th
(8) (i)
(x)
kljEpa(k)
The following messages should be held constant
ma ma (a)l))))
(S Vi > No
(x(x(()) p(a
16

---

See Fig. 4 to track the correspondence between the above messages and the factor graph of the factored MDP. Note that most updates correspond exactly with standard loopy BP, and only few (the ones involving <) are specific to VBP. These messages updates should be iterated until convergence or for fixed number of iterations. Two tricks improve convergence are (a) damping the message updates in log space; (b) as the iterations progress, anneal between LBP (c 1) and VBP (very small <). We typically use both, with damping of 0.5 (i.e., the mean of the old and the new message in log space) and anneal by using (iter) max m0.000.0, 1.0/iter), where "iter" is the iteration number. Scheduling also plays role in convergence. We propagate the messages by alternating backward and forward schedules in outer loop. and solving each time slice to convergence in inner loop. We did observe a correlation between the quality of the solutions and VBP converging.
a1
a2
mf ((t)
P)
(r2
(1)
(1)
I
2
233
my my
se (0 6e
(o Lo
(idPle
(
(2)
ri
Z
ARix
pa
po(4)
Figure 4: Correspondence between the message passing updates and the factorized MDP.
E The connection with maximum entropy reinforcement learning
If assume, have done throughout this paper, that the reward and dynamics functions known, maximum entropy reinforcement learning (MERL) corresponds to finding the policy that maximizes weighted combination of the reward and the policy entropy. averaged over the trajectories induced by such policy. In this restricted setting, some of the main difficulties of RL disappear (c.g.. how to efficiently explore and discover the reward and dynamics functions), and "MaxEnt planning" might be a more precise term. However, we stick in this section to the more common term MERL as used the literature (e.g., Levine, 2018), even when only discussing planning. MERL maximizes the following objetive:
max max(R(x, a) +
= max(R(ax a) - a log (a/=)) P(z)a))((la))
where a controls the policy regularization level. For a = 0 we recover standard planning, and as oc, the optimal policy tends the uniform policy.
We can define a A- A-generalized version of MERL:
MERL max log(e a) log T (())))))) F.
Á
With this definition, when À - 0+, we recover the standard MERL objective, and when a - 0+, we recover Eq. (1) standard planning with an exponential utility function parameterized by X.
17

---

Following the same steps as in Appendix A
but including the "policy regularization" term
-a log (a)z)), we can find the corresponding variational form of the X-generalized MERL:
FMERL max (og(exp(A[[(zz a) - a log (a/x))) P( ((ala)m(am))
X
max (- Ex( + (1 - (1 Hrhhamnigg (q) + c Humanginal ()) max FMERL (q)
FX
= A
where we use the shorthand cquivalently, a S 1/A). This is an interesting result that shows that policy regularization corresponds to variational objective that interpolates between planning and marginalizaaton, with both entropies being precisely defined in Table [ This in turn means that, when the X-generalized MERL uses a finite À > there is a policy regularization level for which the variational posterior for X-generalized MERL coincides exactly with marginal inference.
aA and need to assume S 1 for the above equality to hold (or
One can view the smoothed value BP message-passee passeegppsnnggggg updates from Appendix D from two alternative but perfectly equivalent perspectives: In one, we smooth the planning entropy (which can lead to ill-defined messages) with the standard marginal entropy from belief propagation. In the other, the smoothing comes from regularizing the reward with the policy, i.c., from performing generalized MaxEnt planning instead of standard planning. This is still true when X 0 the case typically considered in the literature when talking about MERL (Ziebart, 2010 Levine, 2018).
E.1 The connection with Sergey Levine's "RL probabilistic inference" (the À + 0 case)
In the common case in which rewards are additive, we have that À + 0+ and a is unconstrained. To analyze this case, we first rewrite the X-generalized MERL variational objective using KL divergences. as we did in Appendix B for the planning variational objective:
F FMERL ()) = = (R(x,, a)) + (a)()))))
(L(((E)))P())) + Σ (KL (e az))) g(z),)))
Following the same reasoning as in Appendix B since the KL terms are non-negative, the only way for 1 J (q) to have a finite value as + 0 Is to set q( [2,, a.) = P( [Tt, ae) Vt, which cancels the KL term and removes the dependence on X. Thus, MMERL F max x (q)
max R(x, ()) + (alp)) s.t. ((3441 aa,, 0x) P( 1 a:) Vt,
(11)
which is a policy-regularized version of Corollary I.I We implicitly assume q to be constrained to the space of density functions, instead of including all the linear constraints that guarantee this, as we
explicitly did in Corollary [.I This objective is concave with linear constraints and therefore has a single maximum, the MERL with additive rewards, X
Observe that Eq. I1 corresponds exactly with the structured variational inference from (Levine, 2018), including the constrained form of the posterior (compare with Eq. (19) within (Levine, 2018 where they have used a = 1).
We can further show that the optimal posterior can also be found by performing marginal inference with a constrained variational posterior the graphical model with À = 1/a,, which is not im- mediately intuitive. Indeed, the optimal solution to problem Eq. (1T is maintained if we scale Assuming a O, we can write
max F MERL (q) = max MEERL (q) (log ((x))(())))) (a) log x
s.t. ( Fe, a.) = P(x [2,, a.) Vt a (max(R((e)) a) /a + log (Ixlaa)) + Hz a)
s.t. g( Fr, ar) = P( 12 az) Vt
a max marginal (q)
s.t. ( Fe, ar) = P(res1lZ4, az) Vt.
18

---

The first equality is correct because log a) log P(x 0, under the assumption ( [2, ae) P [Tr, a,) Vt, and therefore the added term is O. The last expression corre- sponds to standard (marginal) variational inference for the graphical model exp( R(x,, P In other words, the optimal q can be obtained by two seemingly unconnected routes: either maximiz-- ing =x with no constraints on the form of the posterior, or maximizing F constraining the 1-1/a posterior dynamics to match the prior dynamics. This is what is done in (Levine, 2018). where they implicitly use À a 1. In the special case of deterministic dynamics, the constraint of posterior dynamics matching prior dynamics is already enforced by marginal inference, so it does not need to be separately enforced. For this reason, in (Levine, 2018) is said that for fixed dynamics MERL corresponds to vanilla marginal inference.
E.2 Maximum-entropy value belief propagation (MaxEnt VBP)
We are interested in optimizing the cost function
FMERI. max ( (-Ex (q) + aaHBett Bethe
1 A 4
marginal
(q) - -1- H
(1-x))))
planning ( with as $ 1.
Bethe
which exactly the same cost function as in Appendix D but with = ad so as to explicitly correspond to generalized MERL. The message updates essentially the same in Appendix D but explicitly revealing the influence of A on allows us to define a different message (power-) scale to obtain message updates that are well-defined as À becomes closer to zero. Here are the re-scaled messages, and the updates defined terms of those re-scaled messages:
1/a
((=,11)) (a,"0,a,)//4 a,)2//> (x(=(((1) .0))= (0)))
(Σ
m (= pp(p)p((p)) 120000) ae)
mb(17 (=(2f1(0))/1/1 = mm((pfu()) (1ap(((i) = (Q(x (a())
ag (n)
1/2 my(af(())) (1(()) ymo yoo (of
Q( ai)
(a) 1/2 (at) = (
(
n (0) (a.)2// (ax)) = II
m (ac)
1/2 Q(afo(t) as (nt)
)m( x plafff
(6) la aa))
mr(2z41) = Σ
ma (aful()))
Q(x .a))
2 i
país)
me( pa(())
II
m4 (xr
(0) (K))
(E
n4 (4) (1(ي²) = mf(xx) (1)
II
(8) (Z) towards parents of entity i
Th
M)JEpa(k)
mb ( (c()))111 m/ (2155) Σ
mo (aflaall)
m
(4) (x (3))
1/2
from parents of entity i
(x
Jays
mb(2)))11/> = meb (z()) = II
(8)
())
Pb
(x)
H)sEpa(k)
The following messages should be held constant
ma((aaa(1) exp(R(((((())) Vi No
(²( = ())
19

---

It is trivial to obtain these updates from Appendix D and setting the smoothing é at. This message updates correspond to maximum-entropp VBP, where À controls the exponential utility (from additive to multiplicative and beyond) and the degree of policy entropy regularization.
E.3 MaxEnt VBP with additive rewards (the - 0+ case)
If we take the limit À + 0+ in the previous updates, we are specializing them to the additive rewards case, which is the standard setting planning and reinforcement learning, while still keeping parameter a that controls the degree of policy entropy regularization. When the graphical model is non-factored MDP, MaxEnt VBP with + 0+ coincides with the dynamical programming updates proposed in (Levine, 2018 Section 3).
Thus, the updates below can be seen as an extension of the dynamic programming approach from (Levine, 2018)
(018) to factored MDPs:
Q(=]"(() (a,))))a)=)))))))))))))))))).. = exp Σ
p (x a.) log mo (b(x221)
(ap(((b((()) =
( az )a))
1/2 Q(affatt) at)
(ar) = (E
mi(afulli) )
(
77(00 (az) II in! (at))
@(a,puia a (a))
mr(x(41) = E
milaf (p((t))))pppa))
(2) (xfe(()) a.)
mo (To(ff1(1))
mutss a
m4(2.0(0) pa())) = II
ny (3)
(z/
kEpa())
(1) (xz (5)) = exp
(log ma (x (2) pa(i))
II me(af()))
from parents of entity i
m (1)
II
(1))
(z7
klsEpa(k)
The following messages should be held constant
mo(afall)) = exp(R(x Vi No m²( = (()
These are obtained directly from the ones in the previous subsection, simply by taking the limit + 0t, which remains well-defined.
E.4 Empirical results using MaxEnt VBP with additive rewards
We provide here repetition of the IPPC experiments from Section 6 but this time using MaxEnt
VBP with additive rewards (A + 0+). Results are similar, but the logic the message passing is greatly simplified due to À having vanished analytically rather than numerically. The corresponding code is also included at ht/ttss::// //g www..thh...aaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee http://ooo-eddedinddde what ttpeeyppoo inf.iineeeen inference
is_ js_planning
20

---

Averige cumolativ reward
MrVi-ed CSVI Bwc
Average cumulative
ARolkus (F (Buerandd)
S0GBOFA.LC (AA
VI LP 18 ours
VBP Fe oum)
MasEat VBP (a ouu))
teaching,
domain
M
Average cumullttve reward
Average cumulative
Cross ng
Ave age curn attre reward
Jue age cumu
Game life domain instance index
Sysad min domain instance index
Figure 5: Cumulative rewards 6 problem domains from the ICAPS 2011 IPPC. A small horizontal jitter was introduced all data points for visual clarity. Each cumulative reward is averaged over 30 simulations per instance. Datasets ordered from left right and top to bottom by increasing normalized entropy levels. Only the last two have a significant stochasticity level >5%.
Entropy terms for other inference types
The entropy terms for inference types other than the "planning inference" were introduced in prior work and are compiled here for convenience.
First will derive general variational expression that depends inverse temperature B. The function f(x, a) will be an (unnormalized) factor graph, with the structure of Fig. Left].
3 log Σ a) log Σ (x a) f(x a tight Jensen
E q( a) log f(x a)
max ((n,a) 3
q(0,00 a)
q(0, a)
max (log f(z a) g( + HH a) q(x,a)
(12)
Marginal inference This is the standard VI problem, see e.g., (Jordan et al., 1999). and can be recovered from Eq. I2 by setting 1. Then get
log Σ f(x a) max (log f(x, a)) + Hg(a, a).
(13)
q(=.a)
21

---

Since fax a) forms a chain in our application of interest (see Fig. I Left)), we know that the optimal posterior will as well. We can thus decompose (Z, a) using the chain rule obtain the expression from Table H marginal
(g) (x1) + Ei=1 Hg (Te+1, ae (x).
Maximum-a-posterror (MAP) inference
MAP inference can be recovered from Eq. [2 by setting
B - 00
max log (xx, a) lim log [a, axx 3-000 3
max (log (xx, a)) a)) q(m,a)
lim 3
3 Hg (x, a), (14)
2,a
a;a
where limg- 1 Hy [z, a) produces the term HMPP (q) = from Table The maximization an 8
LP problem, see (Weiss et al., 2012). This problem can be relaxed into a local polytope, giving rise to most well-known methods for approximate MAP inference, such as dual decomposition. See e.g.. (Sontag et al., 20TT). An optimal distribution solving this problem Dirac delta centered one of the MAP solutions of the problem.
Marginal maximum cariuuuu---psstttere postterio (MMAP) inference MMAP combines the previous two types of inference, (Liu and Ihler, 2013) for detailed (approximate) solution methods. We can reuse the previous results to obtain the variational expression
max log E(1 a)
Eq 1
max max (log fæx a)) + H(g(x(a)
q( a)
Eq
max (log f(z q))((aa))))) Hg a) Hg(a)
((..a)
max (log f(z, ()), (z a) ((x,a)
Σ Hg(ar)
To understand the last equality, first note that ET= Ha((a) Ha(a), since the latter is the joint entropy. This means that the last expression is necessarily lower than or equal to the previous one. is not yet clear why equality is always achievable. To see this note that, analogously to the previous section, the optimal ((a) will be a Dirac delta centered at an optimal sequence a. That means that the optimal variational distribution of MMAP factorizes as ( a) = q(x) I' ((a.). This in turn means that, for the optimal distribution Σ Hg (a:) Hy(a). So the last expression can always match the previous one, and given that is also lower bound, it must have the same optimal distribution and value.
Just like we did for marginal inference, we can now decompose H (z. a) using the chain rule to obtain the expression from Table HMAP (q) (x)))) + ΣT- Hg (I ag) Hy(as).
G Proof of the bounding relationships among different inference types
We want to prove that for an arbitrary variational distribution
MMMMP (q) S FX
pplanning (q) S margiiall
F marginaal (q)
and that, when we assume that dynamics are deterministic (which we also take to imply that the first state follows deterministic distribution, i.e., it is known), the optimal values of the above bounds wrt satisfy the following relationships
margginal
X
<
T
MMAP
plaannnng
piaarginal
Since the energy terms are identical for all these bounds, we will simply have to prove the relationship between the corresponding entropies, given in Table
Proof that F.)
plamning (q) < F
mmrrginnl (g)
22

---

The marginal entropy term clearly upper bounds the "planning inference" entropy term
H Hurriinal
(q) = (21))) +
Σ (e(
T-1
H 11llanning (q) = Hz1(2)) + Σ Hy (e,
since
Hg ( -Hg xee+ Hg(ar (xe);
and entropies non-negative.
Proof that FAMAPP (q) - F j-planning (q) (and FMMAP
F planning for deterministic dynamics)
The "planning inference" entropy term
T-1
planning ( = (z1(1) +
Σ
Hy (1
clearly upper bounds the MMAP entropy term
MMAP (q) H2((11) Hg(24+1, Hg(as)
111((01)
1g an) (Hg(a Hlg(a))
Hx((x)) + N
(a ar) 10000-g(((00 (x((
=
since the mutual information ( 0z) is non-negative.
In exact MMAP variational inference (Liu and Ihler, 2013), at the optimal solution, the variational
distribution factorizes as g(x,a) a) (xx IT= g(a,). as we mentioned in Appendix F This
because MMAP finds a single, deterministic, optimal sequence of actions. Therefore (2,; a.) = 0
when evaluated at the q that maximizes FMMAP (q). Setting that term to zero in the MMAP entropy results in the same expression as the "planning inference" entropy. However, "planning inference". the optimal variational distribution does not need to factorize in the way it does for MMAP, so
richer variational distribution is possible, and 1: planning can be strictly larger than E-MAP for some problems.
However, when dynamics are deterministic and the first state 21 is known, the optimal plan is deterministic sequence of states and actions, and the optimal "planning" variational distribution is Dirac delta at those states and actions. Therefore, the optimal distribution for planning also factorizes as q(z, a) ((x) [[--1 g(a;) when the dynamics are deterministic. Therefore, in that the optimal values coincide plllaniigg MMMP (and so the optimal variational distributions).
We can also show that at the optimal q value the entropies of both bounds are zero. P( ,,,,,,) (and P(x1)) are deterministic, g [a,, xx)) P(z (4. (and q(x1) P(x1)) for both of these bounds to be larger than - -o (see Section 4.2).. Since these are deterministic distributions, H1 (g [t)
and (x1) 0, which in turn makes H/ plpanning (
the optimal q. Ie..
H|planning
Since (2(3 a.) 0, also M/MAP 0.
Proof that MAP (g) < MMAP (and MAPP_ MMMM (q) for deterministic dynamics)
23

---

The MMAP entropy can be rearranged in the following form
T-1
HMMAP (q) = Hg( +
Σ
H 11 - Hg(
(21 ,T
1T 0
Hg(ae)
T
Σ
Hg (zt) 2 0.
where the last equality follows because the mutual information and entropy are non-negative. This clearly upper bounds the MAP entropy term MMPP (q) = O. 0.
When dynamics are deterministic and the first state 21 is known, we can reuse the results of the previous proof. We know that in that case, the optimal variational distribution for MMAP and planning is a Dirac delta at the optimal sequence of states and actions, and that the bound only contains the energy terms (since the entropy terms for any Dirac delta distribution will be zero). The problem of finding such distribution is exactly the MAP energy minimization problem. Thus, dynamics are deterministic the optimal values coincide FMMAP F (and so do the optimal variational distributions).
Proof that FX mararinnll
(q) S FX
PMMAP (q)
The MMAP entropy term
T-1 H MMAP = Hg(()) +
(,(0011,0001)) - Hg(at))
clearly upper bounds H Marginal iq).
T-1
H Marginal
(q) = H,((1)) + Σ (H,( log Na)
since Hy(a:)= S log No. with equality being attained when g(ae) is uniform.
Proof that FX Emmarginal" FMP for deterministic dynamics
We can rewrite the entropy corresponding to the marginal bound with uniform prior as
H (q) = =H)(())) +
Hg (1141, log Na)
= HH((1)) + Σ H (24+1 + (a - log Na)-
When dynamics deterministic and the first state 21 is known, we know from the previous proofs
that at the optimal value q of Amaagiinal" (q) we have Hy(x1) = 0 and (z [2 2x) = O. The remaining terms, the form H2 (ag]æz) - log No are trivially non-positive (the conditional entropy over the actions cannot be larger than the log of the cardinality of the action space). This means that
the maximum value of ramarginal"
(q) wrt q we have Marrgnnal" (q) S 0. Since HAM (q) = we
know that with deterministic dynamics pamarginall
S FMMP
H An application of VI for planning: bounding determinization in hindsight
In the planning literature, many algorithms make the assumption of deterministic environment (Geffner and Bonet, 2022, Hoffmann and Nebel, 200T] Helmert, 2006, etc). order to extend these algorithms to the case of stochastic dynamics, the idea of determinization in hindsight has
24

---

been developed (Yoon et 2008). It starts by factoring out all the stochasticity from the transition probability into the random variables y = {re)=11 11=T-1
P( [Tt, az) = Σ
Paa(Fee1 az P())) = (Pan( azs Te)) P(ne)
This factorization is always possible, and y is known the collection of exogenous variables in structural equation modeling (Pearl, 2012 Bareinboim and Pearl, 2016; Rubenstein et al., 2017). We
will define (ao a,, 7) = (2) (0) II t=1 Paa((e11 [t, dz, 7h) Then we can use it to obtain an upper bound on the exact utility
P log
(anoa F.de..plamne planning
a s log Palaa))))))) = Fx=1
that has a natural interpretation: the dynamics variables 7 that get drawn at each time step. if knew their value ahead of time, could treat the environment as deterministic, find an optimal plan and estimate its utility. Because we have hindsight, i..., the deterministic planner better choices than if these were revealed online, so the utility estimation, if exact, upper bounds the original quantity. See (Yoon al., 2008) for more details.
stochastic environment depends on random
the value of future "/ ahead of time, it can make
H.1 Upper bounding determinization for standard MDPs
The above process uses sample average to compute the determinization objective: it alternates between sampling Y P(y) and running deterministic planner, with the exact value being attainable only in the infinite limit. Using the variational framework for planning it is possible to find and upper bound for F Aeseeellumiiig polynomial time.
planning the maximum of concave function that is computable in
First, let expand the determinization bound
F Frder planning Eq.
max(log (aa + log P(7)) + H2(7)
<(>)
max(Frlunnngg
((>) X=1,y /o(0) + (log P(Y)) + H2(r)
in terms of our exact planning utility for given future 7, A=1.7 This quantity and the correspond- ing bound are defined usual way, but conditioned on yy:
plannning
F rolaming max ppplamning (gl>)
with
plaanning A=1
(glr)
(log Pac (ong
(R at, 2441) + log Panl (r,, at, (e (15)
Since the conditional dynamics are now deterministic, log (act at m) can only take the values and -o. When maximizing over q, obvious we must choose g [att dz 7) Pam((T++ (it,, dz, n.) (t) VI and q(01 iy) = (21 (vo), to avoid putting any mass on the -oo value of the previous term, which would result in the whole score function becoming -c.. For such choice the planning entropy vanishes, since dynamics are deterministic.
25

---

The expectation (F (gl))) initially seems to depend on the entire distribution q(7). How- ever, only the marginals 9(%)) are actually relevant for its computation:
(FXE1 (gl7))))))) = -log Pas (21 ((0))(((1))))()))
(Ze ae 2141) log P as,
(log Pact (z (o) ((ulllo1))))))
(Relze, ae 2441) log (a at, (t
So far all computations are exact. If we now upper bound the entropy of the exogenous variables, (T(r)) & EtO Hg(T)), we can upper bound the determinization objective. Putting all together, have that determinization for multplicattive exponentiated rewards can be upper bounded by concave variational bound of the form
T-1
F det planning Fdee planning UB
max F Plannning (q-) +
Σ flog P(1))) + Ha(3))
(16)
4-
Σ
9(1,, = Σ Paul(2l170g(11
s.t.
Σ 0441, ((1)11))))77++1)=====
Σ an Vi;
ar
4142/7011
Σ
(((), 76) Vt; ((2,, ar 7x) 2 VL.
where we have defined
T
pplumming
(RelFe, ae Pan Paree pa
as a simplification of (F (4)7)) when the above constraints are met. We have additionally defined 4, = {g(xe, at, 7h) T (
H.2 The factored MDP case
In the case of standard MDP, it trivial to see that determinization, which provides an upper bound on the exact utility, cannot improve on our bound ppplanning since the latter exact. In this section we will show that this is also the case for factored MDPs in which the deterministic MAP problem is solved using an LP MAP relaxation.
First, we will show that pplanning can be rewritten in a more convenient way compare with determinization, in the standard, non-factored case. We expand
planning max A=1
polannnng (q) max Ex=1(q) + pplanning (q)
and substitute
log P ax)
max (0vd
(log Paa(Fe411 aes (0)
inside (x=1(q) to get
T-1
polanning max (lplaninn (glr))g()) +
(log P(w))aan + Hg velas,
1=1
26

---

where g( %) = (Te at, 70) VA for the same reasons above. To compact notation, we use the convention that Hg(2) 2o. zo ao) = (Z1 7o) (since Ip, ag are defined), and similarly (70 to. an) = Hg (70). Noting that (1 7 2a) = Hg (1 [e, Or. 7t) H (vrela, F4) and that (I [2t, at 71) because g(*++1 ( 01s (t) deterministic, we get
F planning
max F. P (qx))
Σ
(log P(W))at (n((aa),
(17)
4+
1=
Σ a(11, a1) = Σ Pan(zi1o)g((1)
s.t.
01m71
Σ ( 1ot1) =
Pae(#1411 ae W)g(a. on 7)) Vt; Fe.
Σ
1141
( 11)
Σ (1, n) Ne,t; q( 0r, 71) 2 AA.
Compare Eqs. (16) and (7). Although we already knew this, with this particular formulation is very easy to see that Expanning I Friet planning UB since they are identical except for the terms Hy (x,)))))))) x2) S (1)) Ví. This holds for the same q, but also establishes relationship between both upper bounds at their maximum wrt q-
With this result, we can return to the factored MDP case. As in the main text, here we will consider R
to be only a function of xt. We can take Eqs. [6 and (17 and relax q, from the marginal polytope
1tllii= M to the local polytope L. using the pseudo-marginal q {g(x:-10) ae 7t (8) --,--,, U
( U () 1==1,==N++1 For Eq. (66), and substituting the value from Eq. 155 this
produces factored MDP upper bound corresponding to determinization with À =
N. Σ
Fulet. planning UB
Σ
(R(a)
Σ flog P()121) + H2((121)
max 4
((
t=1
No+1
s.t.
Σ
q( aai,aa,,
aa 71 10)=
Σ
Pa (2a )(0))()))))))))))))))))))))))))) Vi
a1,71
%
Σ
q( Q.11
7441
Σ
(9) Paul=1t110) (00()) ar, Ve )g(at
pa(i)
pa(t) (nnnt Vt,ie E I.
.arint (8)
and pseudo-marne marginal constraints,
which can be interpreted as an outer maximization over g(7) and an inner MAP optimization of the (conditional on y) deterministic dynamics problem, solved with an LP relaxation (Sontag et al., 2011). For Eq. (17). and also substituting the value from Eq. (15). this results in a different formulation of the problem Eq. 7
T
No
N llg P(311))/001) H2, It-1, at-1))
pplamning A=1
Σ Σ
(R(x (()x(a())))
Σ
max Or 1=1
+
N=
s.t.
Σ
U1, (1, (0)
Σ
(a (1 )g(70)) Vi
Σ
( (11
Σ
Pael 12
pa(()) ar, )g(2f ( Vt,ie ,,
pa(1)
(0)
7141
and pseudo- pseudo-marginal constraints.
In the same way as for the non-factorized MDP, it is easy to see that Eaplanning < < planning UB while both upper bound the exact Fpplaming This means that in the case of (exponentiated) multiplicative rewards (X = 1) our proposed bound should be no worse than the provided upper bound on determinization.
X=1
27

---

I Empirical validation: details
L. Synthetic MDPs
The synthetic MDPs use binary state and actions, T = time steps and follow the connectivity scheme of Fig. Right]. The stochasticity level of the MDPs controlled by generating their dynamics according to P(zr+1/ 0t) = P at.t,,z.,,//zz...
where P ~ U[O 1] and choosing the exponent & and the divisor Zz to obtain normalized distributions of the desired total normalized entropy HMDP. Each entity has two parent entities and we provide single reward of 1 for reaching the state 0 of entity I at the last step T. Having a single reward allows comparing methods with arbitrary and create a pure planning problem (see Section 4.2
1.2 Reactivity avoidance of MAP and MMAP inference
As discussed in Section a common flaw among all inference types (other than planning inference) is that they cannot anticipate reacting the environment. Even the tightest one, MMAP, makes plans assuming that it will only be able to take predefined sequence of actions. This can severely underestimate the value of an action if, to extract future reward, reacting the environment state is necessary. In other words, MMAP is optimal only when the best policy (e(ag) (xr)) ignores the state and can be represented as (at)) MAP inference shares that limitation, and additionally lacks path integration. Le., MAP inference makes decisions based on the score of a single action-state trajectory, rather than a combination of these.
In order to analyze the behavior of different inference types of inference with reactivity, we create an MDP with two entities, each with categorical states 0, ......5. 5. We use horizon of T time steps, placing reward only on the last time step. There are a total of actions.
The first entity describes the location of the agent, and has a special goal state "0" that needs to be reached at the last time step. The second entity describes the dynamics of the first entity and the reward achieved at the goal. Actions O...., 5 allow the agent to move to any location in single step. Actions 6, allow the agent to modify the dynamics of the first entity, respectively decreasing or increasing the needed level of reactivity of planner.
In more detail, the second entity has deterministic dynamics and acts as knob that the agent can freely turn up or down at each time step:
F (2)
1. if a 6 and 0 < xx(
+ 1, if a = 7 and (2) <
x r+1
T
otherwise.
The values of that knob (2)
alter the dynamics of the first entity, requiring more or less reactivity:
if at (1)
= or Sa
U[1
(1)
zt +a mod
with probability x /5
xt (1) #0 and and 0
0
with probability _.(2) /5
In words, if the agent at the goal state 0 or the reactivity of the environment is modified, will jump to a random non-goal state. If the agent is not at the goal state and x; = 5. it can use the actions ....,, 5 to jump any desired state with absolute certainty. As the value of the knob x! is reduced, the agent starts losing control of where it is going, and it is instead more likely to jump to the goal. Now, the final ingredient, the reward, is:
1.0,
if x = 0 and x = and =
(x .xx))
0.33,
if xz (1) 0 and x2(2) and T
0.0,
otherwise.
When we put all these pieces together, have the following situation: to achieve the maximum reward, we want to keep the the knob _ at its "maximum reactivity" value of 5. But when we do that, the action that will take the agent to the goal depends on the state it is located at. Therefore, the
28

---

agent needs to react to the location that it is at. And when planning ahead, to properly choose the best first action to take, the agent needs to score the options according to this future ability to react to actions. By turning the knob z all the way down to O, we can jump to the goal by taking any action O,...,6, 6, regardless of where we are, i.e., we do not need any reactivity.
We present this factored MDP, initialized =10') = 0, =o
to both VBP and SOGBOFA-LC*.
(1) Their behavior is very different. VBP is aware that it can jump to the goal state 2T 0 at any time as long as it is not there yet. So it just idles in the other states, keeping the reactivity at the maximum level, until the last time step, in which it jumps to the goal, capturing reward of 1.0. SOGBOFA-LC* even though it is replanning at each state, can only evaluate the possible actions by considering a single best sequence of non-reactive actions at time. Since the reactive plans that VBP prefers are not "visible" to SOGBOFA-LC*, decides to use the first 5 actions to reduce the
(2) reactivity of the environment all the way down to 2T I O. In that way, it guaranteed to be able to jump to the goal in the last instant without having to be reactive, even if only capturing a reward 0.33.
This example highlights how SOGBOFA-LC" (and MMAP planning in general) struggle with reactive environments in which the best future actions cannot be known the current time step. Essentially, the agent is myopic to the fact that it will be able to replan and chooses to be conservative and reactivity avoidant. proposing sequences of actions that will be guaranteed to work in any scenario, even if this reduces the obtained reward. We can make the difference between VBP and SOGBOFA-L.C** performance arbitrarily large simply by increasing the number of states and planning horizon.
MAP inference presents the same non-reactivity problems as MMAP, combined with the lack of integration across multiple paths. On this problem, the average reward achieved by a perfect MAP inference agent is ~ 0.13.
1.3 Experimental Details on ICAPS 2011 International Probabilistic Planning Competition Problems
I.3.1
Experimental Settings
Six different inference approaches, MFVI-Bwd, CSVI-Bwd, ARollout, SOGBOFA-LC, LP, VBP, and random agent are evaluated on 6 different domains (Crossing traffic, Elevators, Game of life. Skill teaching, Sysadmin, and Traffic) used in the ICAPS 2011 International Probabilistic Planning Competition (Sanner. (01T). Figure 3 shows the average cumulative reward of all domains. Table shows the corresponding objective and reference for each approach. There are 10 instances for each domain. All instances have a horizon of 40 and a discount factor of 1. The cumulative reward is averaged over 30 simulations for each instance and the plotted error bar shows its standard error of the mean. Given the current state T2, the transition probability P zz). and the reward function R, each approach infers the best next action ae at each time step. The reward function for all 6 domains only depend the state The cumulative reward is the sum of the rewards of the initial state and the following 39 states.
For all inference approaches, we run with a look ahead horizon of both 4 and 9. We follow the settings in (Wu and Khardon, 2022) where the look ahead horizon is truncated if extends beyond the remaining time steps. The horizon with the higher average cumulative reward is then selected for each instance. The experiment evaluates over two look ahead horizons due to the observation that for some domain instances a longer horizon may lead to worse estimates. For each simulated run, the same set of random numbers are applied to the simulated environment to reduce noise when comparing different inference approaches. All experiments were run CPU machines in the cloud.
I.3.2 MFVI-Bwd
The backward mean field variational inference approach (MFVI-Bwd) based on the implementation in (Wu and Khardon, 2022 url: https::/ggtthei com/ Zhennan Wu/ AISPFS), in which the mean field approximation ga the product of independent factors. g is first obtained by maximizing the ELBO of the true posterior under the condition that the maximum accumulated reward is reached using the EM algorithm. The action is then selected based on the marginal (a). In the experiment, the maximum number of iterations is set to 100 and the convergence threshold is set to 0.1 for the EM algorithm. MFVI-Bwd experiments were ran on a single CPU machine with 32 virtual cores. All 30 simulations were ran in parallel for each task instance.
29

---

Table 2: Six different inference approaches used for comparison in the ICAPS 2011 International Probabilistic Planning Competition problems and their corresponding objective and reference.
Inference Approach
Objective
Reference
MFVI-Bwd
(Wu and Khardon, 2022
CSVI-Bwd
(Wu and Khardon,
2022
Emmrginal
ARollout
(Cui et al., 2015
Cui and Khardon, 2016)
SOGBOFA-LC
FMMAP x=0
(Cui et al., 2019
VILP
planning
Ours
X= F A=20
VBP
Ours
1.3.3 CSVI-Bwd
The backward collapsed variational inference approach (CSVI-Bwd) is proposed in (Wu and Khardon, 2022). uses collapsed variational inference effectively marginalizes out variables other than the actions to achieve a tighter ELBO. The authors have shown that this approach out performs MFVI-Bwd. CSVI-Bwd experiments were ran with the same hardware setup as MFVI-Bwd.
I.3.4 ARollout
The Algebraic Rollout Algorithm (ARollout) introduced in Cui et al., 2015 is equivalent to belief propagation when conditioned on actions as shown in Cui et al., 2018 our experimental setting which the search depth is fixed with computation time limit, ARollout is equivalent to the original SOGBOFA (symbolic online gradient based optimization for factored actions) approach introduced in (Cui and Khardon, 2016). While ARollout performs approximate aggregate rollout simulations to evaluate each action, SOGBOFA uses the gradient of the accumulated reward to update actions for exploration and can be advantageous when the action space is large given computation time constraint. In this experiment, we use the results of forward belief propagation to represent ARollout.
For each time step, the action with the highest estimated accumulated reward is selected. The esti- mated accumulated reward is calculated by running a forward pass on the factored MDP representing the problem conditioned on the next action. ARollout experiments were ran CPU machines with 2 virtual cores. All simulations were ran in parallel.
I.3.5 SOGBOFA-LC
SOGBOFA-LC is based the Lifted Conformant SOGBOFA implemented in (Cui al., 2019 url: https://github tttp//bttttu...../ cwm/mcm / SOGBOFA-LC has two differences over the original SOGBOFA. First, it uses lifted graph that saves computation by identifying same operations. This improvement computation speed doesn't have an effect our experiment result since we provide enough computation time for the given maximum search depth. Second, it uses conformant solutions, which the evaluation of the next action is based on a linear rollout plan that best supports the action. This is achieved by calculating the gradient with respect all actions within the search depth.
In our experiment, the search depth is set to 9 or 4 based on the look ahead horizon. The number of gradient updates is set to 500 following the experimental setting in Wu and Khardon, 2022 The allowed time set to 50000 per iteration, which is sufficient for 500 updates given the assigned depth. SOGBOFA-LC experiments were ran CPU machines with 4 virtual cores sequentially.
Note that the RDDL files in the repository (https:// github. com/ Zhennan Wu/ AISPFS/ ttee http:/mateerrreeee / SOGBOFA) have different initial states from the AISPPS/ttee/ /ttp://////ttt///000////////////
com wwwcccom/ii//eeeeeee http:/hcoo1//SOOOFFFPP. or https::/
original competition for some instances the elevator and skill teaching domains. These differences were corrected to match the original competition settings in our experiments. Modifications were also made to use the same random numbers in the environment as other experiments and measure the standard error of the mean instead of the standard deviation.
30

---

1.3.6 VILP
The Variational Inference Linear Programming (VILP) approach uses the GLOP solver in Google's OR-Tools (Perron and Furnon, 2024) to solve the linear programming (LP) problem derived from each task instance with the target of maximizing the expected accumulated reward. Constraints on states that are specified in the original RDDL problem is added to the LP problem. Among the six domains only the elevator and crossing traffic domains have such constraints. These constraints specify that the elevator/robot cannot at different floors/locations the same time step.
The solver is run for each next action at each time step. The next action that has the highest estimated expected accumulated reward based on the solver is selected. See Section 3.J for more details of this approach. VI LP experiments were run on CPU machines with 16 virtual cores. All simulations were run in parallel. For each iteration, LP solvers for each next action were run concurrently with multiprocessing.
I.3.7 VBP
Note that setting value for À is meaningless if the reward can have arbitrary scaling (and for the case of IPPC in which rewards are additive, the scaling is indeed arbitrary). Therefore, we first normalize all rewards have a maximum point-to-point variation top of that normalization. The closer to 0 that we set À then, the closer we are to the additive limit. Although outside the scope of this work, it is actually possible to set À to exactly zero in VBP (the problem remains non-convex, but the message updates within each time step become an LP problem). However, at least in a straightforward implementation, we observed such message updates to not result in good optimization of our score function, and often not converging. We attribute this to the degeneracy of the solutions in the limit. Using instead a small value of X = 0.3 had a favorable effect convergence, while remaining close enough to the additive limit. Empirically, found that most problems were not very sensitive to the choice of X.
1.0. is chosen as a reward multiplier on
For each time step, VBP messages are propagated concurrently for a maximum of 150K iterations with 0.1 damping- The value is annealed every 300 iterations from a value of to 0.01 based on the formula described in Appendix [ The next action with the highest expected accumulated reward is then selected. See Section 3.1 and Appendix D for more details this approach. VBP experiments were on CPU machines with 2 virtual cores. All simulations were run in parallel.
31

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question:
Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the
paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We provided proofs and experimental results to justify the claims.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or
NA answer to this question will not perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation long it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
be expected to generalize other settings.
2. Limitations
Question:
Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: section 4.2 we mention settings in which other approaches may outperform our proposed approach. In Figure we show when our proposal perform worse than existing methods. This work very much Tocuses on discussing and comparing the limitations of different approaches to inference.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
32

---

Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Complete proofs can be found in Appendix A B C D refapp:bounding, and
H
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide short proof sketch to provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The experimental details can be found in Appendix
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, descríbing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make clear how reproduce that algorithm. (b) If the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) the contribution is a new model (e-g., a large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome describe the particular way they provide for reproducibilityy In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
33

---

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We plan to release the code for our proposed approaches, LP and VBP, with the camera-ready version of the paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.. cc/
ceeiioooooiiyyy for more details.
While encourage the release of code and data, understand that this might not be possible, so "No" an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https
//nips.ccpublle wwwppppgpuuiiieeeee /ttii///uiide//oeeuuuuiiiii SooodeSubiissi.e ssiiiioicccy for more details.
The authors should provide instructions data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) recommended, but including URLs to data and code permitted.
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: All experimental detail and parameters are specified in Appendix
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Question:
Answer:
[Yes]
Justification:
We reported standard errors of the mean over multiple evaluation seeds.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confi-
dence intervals, statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for
example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall with given experimental conditions).
34

---

The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g.. Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are range (e.g. negative етrоr rates).
If error bars reported in tables plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables the text.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [No]
Justification: We provided detail information of the type of compute worker used for the experiment but did not record the time of execution. The main contribution of this work is to provide theoretical framework for comparing different planning algorithm. The different approaches ran in the experiment uses different hardware and programming language, therefore the measured time of computation may not be directly comparable. Our experimental setting the IPPC 201 competition is based on experiments in (Wu and Khardon, 2022), which there are no limit the run time and the goal is to understand quality of decisions.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary failed experiments that didn't make into the paper).
9. Code Of Ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Our experiments do not include human subjects and all experiment are based simulated environments. Our main contribution is providing theoretical framework for analyzing different planning approaches and we do not expect to have immediate social impacts.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is special consid- eration due to laws or regulations their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative socictal impacts of the work performed?
35

---

Answer: [No]
Justification: Our main contribution in this paper is providing theoretical framework for analyzing different planning approaches. We do not expect social impacts this stage of development.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of MI...
11. Safeguards
Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (c.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: No trained model or dataset for training is used in this work.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
All approaches used for comparison in experiments cited properly.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not existing assets.
36

---

The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include URL.
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset. For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the datasets..paerssttt paperswi thcode. com/datasets package should be provided. For popular datasets,
has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's s creators.
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
No new assets released with this submission.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: This paper does involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Bthies, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: This paper does not involve crowdsourcing research with human subjects.
37

---

Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsoureing nor research with
human subjects.
Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent)
may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such the institution conducting the review.
38


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "1yEAex3EV9", "reviewer": "Reviewer_QvAf", "summary": "The paper proposes a framework to understand, as the title suggests, what type of inference is (probabilistic) planning. The authors make use of variational inference which encompasses marginal, MAP, and marginal MAP (MMAP) inference to theoretically compare the power of such types of inference in bounding the optimal expected reward for probabilistic planning. Furthermore, the authors propose an approximation of planning inference for factored MDPs as they search space is exponential in the input problem. Experiments are run to support the theoretical results and claims.", "questions": "1. The introduction mentions that planning inference is the same as `value iteration', but nowhere else in the paper is value iteration nor Bellman backups explicitly mentioned. Is this a typo with variational inference (both have the same acronym), or is this intended? If this is intended, please expand on this relationship. The closest looking result is in Sec. 3.3.\n2. Can you explain more what is the meaning and/or impact of the result that $F^{\\text{planning}}_{\\lambda} \\leq F^{\\text{marginal}}_{\\lambda}$? e.g. Is the marginal inference an overapproximation? \n3. What are the terms in the denominator of $H_{\\text{MDP}}$ and how is it computed for the IPPC domains?\n\nSuggestions/comments\n- It would be helpful for the reader to provide definitions of some notation in the variational inference section. More specifically it would be helpful to define what is a factor graph and the function $\\langle \\cdot \\rangle_{q}$ in the `energy term'.\n- It could be worth mentioning what is the type of $\\mathbf{a}$ and $\\mathbf{x}$ in Eqn. 1. I assume now that it is a list of $a$s and $x$s of size $T$\n- line 114: never access to the full joint -> never access the full joint\n- The motivation and explaination for the Bethe approximation can be brought earlier rather than referring to the appendix.\n- The term $H_{\\text{Bethe}}$ is not used in the equation under line 118. I only see $H_{\\text{Bethe}}^{\\text{planning}}$ and $H_{\\text{Bethe}}^{\\text{marginal}}$\n- Sec 3.3. forward updates: the sum should not range over $a_t$ if it is defined as the argmax of $Q(x_t, a_t')$. Furthermore, either bring the equality out of the equations, or remove the $a_t=$s in the forward updates and posterior equations.\n- The meaning of $H_{\\text{MDP}}$ as normalised entropies can be explained with an additional sentence rather than referring to the appendix. Furthermore, even when looking at the appendix, none of the $N_e, N_a, N_s$ terms seem to be defined anywhere in the paper. Also is this a new metric or something that exists? There does not seem to be a reference associated with it.", "limitations": "The authors correctly fill in the checklist and justify their answers.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 2, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. The paper poses an interesting theoretical study from a statistical viewpoint on optimisation functions for planning.\n2. The main story and results are well presented and easy to understand.\n3. The experiments are diverse and well motivated, with results supporting the theoretical claims.\n4. The paper provides a good coverage of related work.", "weaknesses": "1. The main weakness of the paper is its clarity. The paper can be better self-contained if some of the other sections can be better motivated and/or explained by an additional sentence or two, rather than references to the appendix. Furthermore, some of the equations and technical details seem to be ambiguous and not well defined. See suggestions/comments below.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your careful reading and catching several typos. We have corrected the paper accordingly and include further explanations below.\n\n**The introduction mentions that planning inference is the same as `value iteration', but nowhere else in the paper is value iteration nor Bellman backups explicitly mentioned. If this is intended, please expand on this relationship.**\n\nWe will explicitly mention the connection with value iteration and Bellman backups. Planning inference is exact in standard (non-factored) MDPs, and corresponds exactly to value iteration. The backward updates of Section 3.3 together with the definition of $Q(x_t, a_t)$ in line 163 can be recognized as the standard Bellman backups, although written with slightly different notation, since these are messages. In particular $Q(x_t, a_t)$ is exactly the Q-function. \n\n\n\n**Can you explain more what is the meaning and/or impact of the result that $F_\\lambda^\\text{planning}\\leq F^{\\text{marginal}}_{\\lambda}$? e.g. Is the marginal inference an overapproximation?**\n\n$F^{\\text{marginal}}_{\\lambda}$ corresponds to running marginal inference on the _unnormalized_ factor graph from Figure 1, the same on which we run planning inference. That factor graph is missing a prior term for the actions. This means that rather than _averaging_ over all the possible sequences of actions, we are _summing_ over all the possible sequences of actions. In the deterministic case it is obvious that this results in an overapproximation, since we are summing the \"correct\" total reward corresponding to the optimal sequence of actions plus the rewards obtained by all other sequences of actions. This intuition, although not as direct, carries over to the stochastic case, so yes, it is an overapproximation in the general case.\n\n**What are the terms in the denominator of $H_\\text{MDP}$ and how is it computed for the IPPC domains?**\n\nA factored MDP such as the one in Figure 1[Right] describes, among other things, the dynamics of multiple _entities_ that are locally independent. E.g., the distribution of $x^{(1)}$ is independent of the distribution of $x^{(2)}$ given the action and values of the entities in the previous time slice. We can separately compute the conditional entropies $H(p(x_{t+1}^{(i)}|x_t,a_t))$ for each entity $i$, conditional on each possible value $x_t, a_t$ of the previous time slice.\n\nThe normalized entropy is defined as \n$$\nH_\\text{MDP} = \\frac{\\sum_{i,x_t,a_t} H(p(x_{t+1}^{(i)}|x_t,a_t))}{N_eN_aN_s^{N_e}\\log N_s}\n$$\n(note that there's a typo in the manuscript). The largest value of the conditional entropy $H(p(x_{t+1}^{(i)}|x_t,a_t))$ is achieved when dynamics are purely random and equals $\\log N_s$, where $N_s$ is the number of states of entity (i), i.e., the cardinality $|x_{t+1}^{(i)}|$. Given that we are summing over all possible values of the previous time slice ($N_a$ is the number of possible actions and $N_s^{N_e}$ is the number of possible states of all $N_e$ entities in the previous time slice), and over all the entities $N_e$ in the current time slice, the maximum value of the numerator is $N_eN_aN_s^{N_e}\\log N_s$, which is used as normalizing denominator. $H_\\text{MDP}$ would equal 1 only when the dynamics of the factored MDP are purely random.\n\nIn the IPPC case, the problem setup gives us direct access to $p(x_{t+1}^{(i)}|x_t,a_t)$, where the conditioning only depends on a small number of entities from the previous timestep, so it is possible to compute $H(p(x_{t+1}^{(i)}|x_t,a_t))$ exactly for all entities and all $x_t, a_t$ and simply average those (which is equivalent to the summing and normalizing of the definition above for $H_\\text{MDP}$).\n\n**About the definition of ${\\pmb x}$ and $\\pmb a$**\n\nThese are defined in Section 2.1 (line 43 to be more precise).\n\n**$H_\\text{Bethe}$ is not used in line 118**\n\nYou are absolutely correct, we have fixed this. The corrected equation is\n\n$$\n  H_\\text{Bethe}^\\text{planning}({\\pmb{\\tilde q}}) \n   = \\sum_{i=1}^{N_e} H_{\\pmb{\\tilde q}}(x_1^{(i)})+\n\\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \\Big(H_\\text{Bethe}( \\tilde{q} (\\pmb{x}\\_t))+\n\\sum_{i=1}^{N_e}\n H_{\\pmb{\\tilde q}}(x^{(i)}_{t+1}| {\\pmb x}^{\\text{pa}(i)}_t, a_t)\n\\Big)\n$$\n\n\n**About the update equations in Sec 3.3**\nThanks for pointing this out. Since these equations arise from deterministic distributions, we think the best option is to use a Kronecker delta $\\delta_{a,b}$, where $\\delta_{a,b} = 1$ if and only if $a = b$ and 0 otherwise. This results in\n\nForward updates:\n$$\nm_\\text{f}(x_1)=P(x_1);~~~m_\\text{f}(x_{t+1})=\\sum_{x_t,a_t} p(x_{t+1}|x_t,a_t)\\delta_{a_t, \\arg\\max_{a_t'} Q(x_t,a_t') })m_\\text{f}(x_t)\n$$\n\n\nPosterior:\n$$\nq(x_{t+1}, x_t, a) \\propto m_\\text{b}(x_{t+1})p(x_{t+1}|x_t,a_t)\\delta_{a_t, \\arg\\max_{a_t'} Q(x_t,a_t')} m_\\text{f}(x_t)\n$$\n\n**About the normalized entropy and missing definitions**\n\nThe terms $N_s, N_e$ are introduced in Section 2.1, we will add the definition of $N_a$ (which is the number of actions). The normalized entropy is probably the most naive way to measure the randomness of a factored MDP, and as far as we are aware has never been proposed before. It was very useful to characterize the behavior of the different types of inference.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "1JIyK9cbH8", "reviewer": "Reviewer_ppF9", "summary": "This paper shows that planning in an MDP can be posed as a specific form of\ninference in a graphical model; in this context of inference, different forms\nof inference can be applied, with different results. Additionally, alternate\nforms of inference such as variational techniques can be used, which allow\nbetter plans to be inferred than existing baselines. \n\nThis is not a perfect paper, but overall it is a good idea, well executed and\nI recommend it for acceptance.", "questions": "- Are there any computational constraints on the VBP? Is it comparable in\n  speed to the gradient descent techniques?\n\n- Are there convergence issues? The paper briefly discusses this but more\n  detail is needed.\n\n- Can the other forms of inference (e.g., $F^{marginal}$, etc.) map exactly to\n  different forms of planning? The experimental results seem to suggest this,\n  e.g., $F^{marginal}$ maps to ARollout, but it would be helpful to know this\n  earlier in the paper.", "limitations": "The authors did not include a discussion of limitations, and this is one of the\nweaknesses of the paper.", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "- The primary strength of this paper is the technical contribution, which is\nhow the paper places the planning problem in the context of inference in\ngraphical models. The relationship between planning and inference is not\nnovel, but the generalisation of this relationship to different forms of\ninference is novel.\n\n- The paper (mostly) shows how the policy for a standard, flat MDP can be\nfound by solving for the variational posterior over states, and also shows how\na variant of belief propagation can be used to find this posterior.\n\n- The paper generalises this result to factored MDPs, and shows how belief\npropagation is even more useful.\n\n- The paper evaluates the VBP technique against gradient descent baselines and\n  exact solution techniques on both 5000 synthetic MDPs and also 6 domains\n  from the internation planning competition. The paper shows that VBP is very\n  close to the exact solution and outperforms the other baselines on the\n  synthetic domains. On the IPC domains, the VBP seems to match the\n  performance of the best baseline across all IPC domains (different baselines\n  have different performance across different domains -- VBP seems to match\n  the best one on each domain).", "weaknesses": "The paper has two primary weaknesses:\n\n- There is no discussions of the weaknesses of the inference-based\n  technique. It is not clear if the VBP is computationally more costly than,\n  for instance, the gradient-based SOGBOFA techniques. Timing information\n  would have been very helpful.\n\n  It is also the case that while VBP consistently matches the best performing\n  baseline, it does not seem to outperform any of the baselines. It would have\n  been helpful to know why VBP isn't able to match the exact planning\n  technique -- where is the loss in performance coming from?\n\n- Some of the writing is less than clear. For instance, the exponential\n  utility is introduced in table 1, and is justified on page 3 with a short\n  reference to being \"more suitable for a factor graph representation\" but\n  more explanation would have been helpful. Please note in the author response\n  that the concern is not that the exponential utility is problematic, but the\n  text needs to spend more time addressing and justifying this.\n\n  Similarly, the introduction of the $\\lambda$ risk setting is not the common\n  case, and needs more justification. It's not clear that the $\\lambda$ term\n  adds much to the primary point of the paper, and seems to be set to 0 for\n  most (if not all) of the experimental results. Furthermore, appendix F.3.7\n  indicates that $\\lambda$ has no meaning if \"if the reward can have arbitrary\n  scaling\". This is a crucial point that should be in the main body of the\n  paper, and in fact the paper might be clearer without incorporating\n  $\\lambda$ at all since it does not add much to the explanation of planning\n  as inference.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your careful reading and positive impression, we will take your comments into account to improve the clarity of the final manuscript.\n\n**Are there any computational constraints on the VBP? Is it comparable in speed to the gradient descent techniques?**\n\nVBP computational and convergence behavior mirrors that of standard loopy belief propagation.\n\nPer iteration, the computational cost is of the same order as gradient-based SOGBOFA techniques. However, unlike SOGBOFA, it is not finding a single sequence of actions, but what in effect is an approximate policy. This is more involved an often requires more iterations, particularly in very loopy graphs. In the IPPC problems, VBP was slower than SOGBOFA. VBP does not have a theoretical advantage over SOGBOFA when dynamics are very deterministic, and it is likely to be slower, so in those cases SOGBOFA might be a better alternative.\n\n**Are there convergence issues? The paper briefly discusses this but more detail is needed.**\n\nJust like when using loopy BP for inference, there are no convergence guarantees, and the presence of convergence actually correlates with good performance. There are many methods in the literature that address the non-convergence of loopy BP, turning it into a convergent algorithm (often using a double-loop algorithm, or using a concave approximation to the entropy terms to make the problem monomodal). All of these methods can be applied to VBP. Interestingly, although all of these approaches result in convergent algorithms, the performance doesn't significantly improve. This was our observation as well. Our convergent variant VI LP did not typically perform as well or as robustly as VBP, despite being convergent.\n\n**Can the other forms of inference (e.g., $F^\\text{Marginal}$\n, etc.) map exactly to different forms of planning? The experimental results seem to suggest this, e.g., $F^\\text{Marginal}$ maps to ARollout, but it would be helpful to know this earlier in the paper.**\n\nYes, different forms of inference map to different forms of planning, we discuss this in section 5 (Related work), but instead of using the $F$ notation, we describe it verbally, for instance pointing out that SOGBOFA corresponds to marginal MAP (which would be $F^\\text{MMAP}$). We will further clarify this.\n\n\n**Use of the exponential utility and $\\lambda$**\n\nThe exponential utility is what allows us to write a compact factor graph that contains both rewards and dynamics. It contains the standard accumulated reward as a special case (when $\\lambda \\rightarrow 0$), so it is strictly more general. Note that in the standard formulation, rewards are additive, so we cannot include them in the factor graph directly. There is a path to deriving a variational formulation for the standard accumulated reward by using additional auxiliary variables and another step of lower bounding, but it would be an additional complication, and we believe that the introduction of $\\lambda$ makes the model more flexible in practice (see below).\n\nThis is a pervasive problem when trying to connect planning with inference. See for instance (Levine, 2018). Their Eq. 8 tacitly uses an exponential utility with $\\lambda = 1$. The motivation is the same as ours, being able to formulate the dynamics and rewards in the same factor graph. The introduction of $\\lambda$ allows us to keep the simple factor graph formulation, while still being able to handle additive rewards. In practice, $\\lambda$ would be a free tunable parameter that simply acknowledges the relevance of the scale of the reward when making rewards interact in a multiplicative way.\n\nThe IPPC setup corresponds to $\\lambda \\rightarrow 0$. However, in our internal experiments, we observed that for some problems, other values of $\\lambda$ resulted in agents that were able to capture more rewards (even when measured in terms of the standard accumulated reward). The limitations of approximate inference sometimes make agents more conservative, and larger values of $\\lambda$ encourage them to take more risks, which allows them to effectively capture more reward, regardless of how you measure it.\n\nA more thorough discussion of the motivation and implications of the use of $\\lambda$ parameter will be included.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "H8M32mamEC", "reviewer": "Reviewer_vctT", "summary": "This work introduces a variational inference (VI) framework to characterise different types of inference for planning, specifically for finite-horizon MDPs represented as probabilistic graphical models. They also develop an inference algorithm (VBP) that takes inspiration from the loopy belief propagation and adapts it to planning. An experimental evaluation seems to confirm the theoretical analysis.", "questions": "1) Why do you focus on finite-horizon MDPs? Do your result easily translate to infinite-horizon MDPs?\n2) In the introduction (line 27) you mention value iteration, but then any connection with classic MDP algorithms (and Bellman update) is missing. Moreover, you focus on “best exponential utility”, why not the classic “maximum expected utility”? Can you elaborate on this? I think there is a sort-of hint on this in section 3.3 but it is not exactly clear to me.\n3) In Figure 2 (right) the x-axis should be in [0,1] if you are plotting the normalized entropy, why is it not the case?\n4) Connected to the previous question, how do you explain the fact that the different methods converge again when the stochasticity increases? From 4.2 you seem to suggest that the more stochastic the environment, the more your solution should be preferable. Am I missing something?\n5) In Figure 3, it looks like SOGBOFA-LC performs slightly worse on game of life than sysadmin. Doesn’t it go against the intuition that MMAP should degrade when the stochasticity increases?\n6) On line 276 you say that you notice a *significant* advantage of your proposal wrt to SOGBOFA-LC. I’m not sure if I agree with it. Only for the game of life there is clear improvement, but in that case a Rollout is performing better. Can you elaborate on this?\n\n\n\nMinor comments:\n\n- In the abstract, the sentence “...show that all commonly used types of inference correspond to different weightings of the entropy terms” is a bit misleading since these are already known results, as you point out in section 2.2. I recommend re-writing in order to not set the wrong expectations to the reader.\n\n- Some notation is not properly introduced: line 62 (angular brackets, I assume it’s a shorthand for the expected value that might be standard in VI but not in planning communities), line 82 (the limit), line 158 (n_a, n_s), etc.\n\n- Line 44, “small subset of x_t” is an assumption. In principle, x_t^(i) can depend on all x_t-1\n\n- Line 64, I think the “-” before the log shouldn’t be there\n\n- Better avoid contractions and other “informal abbreviations” e.g. “let’s” (line 50) or “wrt” (line 176)\n\n- Line 289, “further the understanding”, I think you want to remove that “the”\n\n- a few more words on the “planning as learning” on line 210, and how that is different from your analysis could be interesting.\n\n- There is a lot of math (that I appreciate) but some intuitive explanation could very much improve the presentation of the results.", "limitations": "Okay.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "The idea is very interesting and original. They also performed an extensive experimental analysis.", "weaknesses": "The paper has two major flaws. First, the text is poorly written, and it definitely doesn’t meet the standards of a high profile conference as NeurIPS. In particular,\n \n1) The introduction and the first subsection of the backgrounds have zero references.\n\n2) The paper is not self-contained. I understand the limit of space, but the background section doesn’t provide all the necessary background. Moreover, the experiment on “Reactivity avoidance” is interesting, but most of the explanation is in the appendix, making it hard to grasp with the sole information in the paper.\n3) The notation is not always properly introduced, for example:\n\n - At the beginning of 2.2 I would explicitly write the equations for the different types of inference. Considering how central they are to the paper, and the fact that the work if theoretical, I would expect a more formal definition.\n \n- The risk parameter \\lambda is introduced in section 3 without any context on what that means in terms of planning. It is not in the standard formulation of MDPs, nor introduced in your background section.\n\n- The “discussion” is not really a discussion, maybe we can call it a conclusion, but anyway it looks rushed and not very “conclusive”\nSee detailed comments below for more examples.\n\nSecond, the soundness of the contribution is undermined by missing details and not very convincing results. In particular:\n\n4) Your definition of “planning inference”, that is central to the paper, is too fuzzy. On line 96 you state that your definition of “planning inference” corresponds to the entropy in Eq.4, however later on line 181, you state that your definition of inference is exact. This I think is a bit confusing. VI is by nature an approximation. I presume I understand what you want to say, nevertheless I think it should be clarified.\n\n5) The discussion on the different types of inference lacks rigour. The notation is not always clear, and most importantly, it is not clear what is the impact of this finding on the planning community. What does it mean in practice that “planning inference” is different from all the others in stochastic settings?\n\n6) The experiments, despite being extensive, don’t show a significant impact coming from the new “planning inference” introduced by the authors. See my questions to the authors for more details.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your time reading this paper, we hope that you will find the following clarifications useful in its judgement.\n\n**Why do you focus on finite-horizon MDPs? Do your result easily translate to infinite-horizon MDPs?**\n\nWhen thinking of planning as inference in a factor graph, it is simpler to consider a finite factor graph that has been unrolled for a finite number of steps $T$. Classical references such as (Levine, 2018) do the same.\n\nPractically speaking, when solving an intractable MDP (such as a factored MDP with an exponentially large state space at each time step), rewards beyond a certain horizon rarely affect the agent. As an example, competitors in the IPPC were given a finite MDP of horizon 40, but they often designed agents that considered and even shorter horizon. Even if an MDP is infinite-horizon, an approximate finite-horizon agent will probably have similar performance to an approximate infinite-horizon agent, since the approximations have a stronger effect than considering the horizon finite vs. infinite.\n\nTheoretically speaking, it is possible to extend our work to deal with infinite horizon MDPs by using the regular structure of the graph. In an infinite MDP, the forward and backward messages at all timesteps should be identical (discounting edge effects), so this becomes a highly symmetric inference problem. Lifted BP was designed for efficient inferences in highly symmetric models. The recipe that we followed to extend standard loopy BP to planning should apply to extend lifted BP to planning.\n\n**In the introduction (line 27) you mention value iteration, but then any connection with classic MDP algorithms (and Bellman update) is missing**\n\nThe connection is mentioned in Section 3.3, where the backward updates correspond exactly with Bellman updates. Note that the definition of $Q(x_t,a_t)$ (in line 163) happens to coincide exactly with the Q table in reinforcement learning. This, together with the backward updates corresponds to value iteration.\n\n\n**You focus on “best exponential utility”, why not the classic “maximum expected utility”**\n\nThe best exponential utility is identical to the“maximum expected utility” in the limit $\\lambda \\rightarrow 0$. Therefore, this is a strict generalization for all $\\lambda$.\nSection 3 has three references (Marthe et al., 2023; Föllmer and Schied, 2011; Shen et al., 2014) that explain the role of $\\lambda$ in planning. Essentially, it is a parameter controlling how risk-seeking an agent is. Using a generic $\\lambda$ allows us to formulate the utility in Eq. (1) in which the exponentiated reward and the dynamics interact multiplicatively. This is critical to express them as a factor graph, since in factor graphs all factors interact multiplicatively.\n\n**In Figure 2 (right) the x-axis should be in [0,1] if you are plotting the normalized entropy, why is it not the case?**\n\nGood catch, we had normalized the entropy in the x-axis for the [left] plot but not for the [right] one. We have corrected this. Nothing changes other than a different labeling in the x-axis, which now runs from 0 to 1.\n\n**how do you explain the fact that the different methods converge again when the stochasticity increases?**\n\nThis is an expected result. When the dynamics are moderately stochastic, a single sequence of actions (as in MMAP) becomes more inadequate to solve the planning problem, and we need more reactivity to the environment to plan. Thus, as stochasticity grows, our proposed method becomes increasingly better than, e.g., MMAP. However, if the stochasticity grows too much, the agent starts to lose any ability to control the environment and this advantage is lost. Think of the extreme case: When dynamics are fully stochastic, the agent follows a random walk regardless of which action is taken. In that extreme regime, any planning method will have the same performance: that of a random walk.\n\n**In Figure 3, it looks like SOGBOFA-LC performs slightly worse on game of life than sysadmin. Doesn’t it go against the intuition that MMAP should degrade when the stochasticity increases?**\n\nThat would have been our expectation as well. However, the stochasticity of game of life and sysadmin are very similar (17% and 23%, respectively), so other differences can have a stronger effect. For instance, the structure of the MDP describing the game of life depends, on average, on more entities from the previous time slice, as compared with sysadmin. It might also require more reactivity for succesful control. These differences make the gap between VBP and SOGBOFA-LC wider than expected when judging purely from a stochasticity level perspective. \n\n**you say that you notice a significant advantage of your proposal wrt to SOGBOFA-LC. I’m not sure if I agree with it.**\n\nYes, this requires more qualification. The advantage is significant in the statistical sense for most instances of game of life and sysadmin (note the lack of overlap of the uncertainty regions in most instances). For the other problems, which are mostly deterministic, it is hard to say whether VBP or MMAP is performing better across the board, as expected since they are very deterministic. ARollout on the other hand is a bit hit or miss, since it integrates over all actions rather than optimizing over them. It works well for game of life, but for the very deterministic elevators in which one can derive a clear plan of action, ARollout performs very poorly.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "9FNSREUtLo", "reviewer": "Reviewer_qHG5", "summary": "This paper investigates the concept of \"planning as inference\", which frames planning problems (i.e. coming up with actions to reach a goal or attain reward) using the vocabulary and mathematics of probabilistic inference. The paper surveys existing formalizations of this broad concept, finding that none of them exactly correspond to the standard planning notion of computing a policy that maximizes expected cumulative reward. In response, the authors introduce a new variational objective, $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ the optimization of which is a generalization of the objective of maximizing expected cumulative reward using some (potentially reactive) policy $\\pi$ (instead of just finding a single action sequence $\\mathbf{a}$ that performs this maximization, as in MMAP). They also show that this objective differs from existing inference objectives (MAP, MMAP, and Marginal inference) in terms of the entropy terms associated with their variational formulations. The authors then derive several practical methods for optimizing $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ based on linear programming (VI LP) or loopy belief propagation (VBP) to compute the optimal $q$ (which corresponds to the action policy $\\pi$). In both synthetic experiments and benchmark IPC problems, they show that these methods are competitive with other planning-as-inference algorithms based on other inference formulations, and confirm that optimizing $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ leads to (desirably) different properties than MAP or MMAP inference, e.g. in terms of policy reactivity.", "questions": "Line 62: \"For a general factor graph f(x, a)\" -- please define what f(x, a) is. Even among probabilistic inference practitioners, the factor graph representation of a inference problem may not be widely known (compared to e.g. computing or sampling from a posterior distribution).\n\nLine 62: I think the bra-ket notation for expectations should probably be defined somewhere, since it is less commonly used than the expectation operator. And perhaps the paper should consistently use one notation or the other.\n\nTable 1: Could you provide derivations or explanations of the variational identities for Marginal, MMAP, and MAP somewhere (e.g. the Appendix), just as you've done for $F_\\text{planning}(q)$? Right now it's not obvious to me why the conditional entropies end up differing in the way shown in column 2, and it seems like there should be some fairly straightforward intuition as to why, e.g. MMAP requires subtracting out $H_q(a_t)$, and why Marginal has $H_q(x_{t+1}, a_t | x_t)$ instead of $H_q(x_{t+1} | a_t, x_t)$ as the conditional entropy term.\n\nTable 1 and Eq 1: $R(\\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{a})$ should be explicitly defined some where as the cumulative reward.\n\nLine 159: Some derivation of the computational complexity would be good (e.g. in the Appendix).\n\nLines 180-181: \"none of which corresponds with the exact “planning inference” from this work, which is exact.\" --- exact with respect to what? Exactly captures the notion of maximizing expected cumulative reward? Exact in the sense that $F_\\text{planning}$ is not a lower bound of itself? I think this should be clarified.\n\nLine 182: \"First, from inspection of the entropy terms it is trivial to see that..\" --- to me this wasn't trivial for all the comparisons shown, and there should be some explanation and derivation. In particular, it was not obvious to me why the entropy term for Marginal$^\\text{U}$ should be lower the entropy term for MAP, which is zero.\n\nLines 185-186: \"Since the tightness of a lower bound is an indication of its quality, it follows that MMAP inference is no worse and potentially better than all other common types of inference.\" --- I think it is confusing for this sentence to follow right after Equation (8), because it suggests that the \"best\" objective is $F_\\text{marginal}$, even though the whole point of the paper is that  $F_\\text{marginal}$ does not capture our standard notion of planning. I think it should be clarified that the MMAP objective is a lower bound to the planning objective in particular, which is the true objective the paper cares about. You could do this with a sentence like \"Except for $F_\\text{marginal}$, which is not a planning objective in the sense of maximizing expected (exponential) utility,  $F_\\text{MMAP}$ is the best lower bound to  $F_\\text{planning}$\".", "limitations": "While there is no explicit limitations section, the authors adequately discuss the approximate nature of their proposed optimization methods, and also discuss cases where their proposed objective is equivalent (and hence does not improve on) existing planning-as-inference formulations (namely, cases without deterministic dynamics).\n\nThere is some discussion of this already, but I think it would be good for the paper to better recognize when Marginal$^\\text{U}$ might be desirable as an objective, as this corresponds to a notion of \"soft planning\" that is similar to Boltzmann-rational models of action selection and max-entropy inverse RL (Ziebart et al, 2010). Sometimes, our goal is not to derive a reward-optimal policy, but to get a policy that is stochastic (because we desire diversity, or because we want to model human planning).\n\nThe paper is largely theoretical in nature, and discussions of societal impact are not immediately relevant.", "rating": 7, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "This was a detailed, interesting, and well-substantiated paper that addresses an important conceptual question for the field of planning-as-inference: What inference objective corresponds to the standard decision-theoretic notion of maximizing expected cumulative reward? To my knowledge, this question hasn't been adequately addressed, and this paper does a very thorough job of providing an answer --- one that I believe will be valuable for future practitioners in the field.\n\nOverall, the paper was well-presented for researchers already with an understanding of planning-as-inference, and the theoretical results were mostly well-explained (see later comments for how the exposition could be improved for a broader audience, as well as several theoretical claims that need to be better justified / clarified). I especially appreciated the explanations as to how the optimization of  $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ differs from other inference objectives (vis a vis policy reactivity), and the derivation (mostly in the Appendix) of how a variant of their objective can capture determinization in planning (which makes clear the variational gap this introduces).\n\nRegard soundness, the proofs that I checked (in Appendices A, B, ad E) appear to be correct, and the experiments provide sufficient validation for both the new objective and the approximate methods they use to optimize it. Even though these approximate methods mostly match existing methods for planning-as-inference like SOGBOFA-LC, the experiments show that in at least some cases (e.g. higher entropy cases or cases requiring reactivity), optimizing the right objective (i.e.  $F_\\text{planning}(q)$) leads to higher cumulative reward.", "weaknesses": "In my opinion, the main way this paper could be improved is in exposition, especially for a broader audience than people already familiar with planning-as-inference, factor graphs, and variational inference. The introduction right now is very short, and then paper goes straight into mathematical background. IMO, some of the discussion in the Related Work should be moved into the Introduction itself, and I think the Related Work probably is best placed after the Introduction. I also think both the Abstract and the Introduction could foreground the intuitive / standard notion of planning as \"maximizing expected cumulative reward\", and communicate that their variational formulation of planning-as-inference both reproduces this objective and generalizes it, whereas other inference objectives do not. This, to me, is one of the main upshots of the paper, and it should be communicated clearly from to get-go as a motivation. Right now, the idea that maximizing $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ generalizes \"maximize expected cumulative reward\" only starts appearing in Table 1, and  Section 3.1.\n\nAs an additional organizational suggestion, after introducing the Background, I think it is probably better to cover the content in Section 4 first, by introducing $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ as a variational objective, then comparing it to the other existing inference objectives. After you have established that $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ is the \"right\" objective for planning, then you can go into the content of Section 3.2 as a separate section that is focused on practical methods for optimizing the planning objective. By organizing things in this way, you first clearly motivate the desirability of $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ as an objective, which then motivates practical methods for optimizing $F_\\text{planning}(q)$.\n\nAside from exposition, I think a number of theoretical claims that the paper makes could be better explained and clarified. In particular, it was not obvious to me that the ranking of inference types in Section 4.1 could be read off from the entropy terms in Table 1 -- there should be an associated proof in either the main paper or Appendix. There are also a few notational choices that I think need to be clearly defined before use, and several sentence discussing the relationship of  $F_\\text{planning}(q)$ to other inference objectives that could be clarified. I will detail these more in the Questions section.\n\nI think the experiments could be made even stronger by comparing against e.g. Monte Carlo methods for planning-as-inference (e.g. Piche et al. (2018)) and model-based planning algorithms for MDPs (standard value iteration, RTDP, etc.), but this is not strictly necessary.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your careful review this paper, and for your insightful comments and suggested improvements, which we will incorporate.\n\n**Please define what f(x, a) is**\n\nWe tacitly take f(x, a) to correspond to the factor graph of Fig. 1 [left], but this is not explicitly mentioned in the text. We will define fully.\n\n**Define the bracket notation or convert everything to expectations for consistency**\n\nWe will convert everything to expectation notation.\n\n**Could you provide derivations or explanations of the variational identities for Marginal, MMAP, and MAP somewhere (e.g. the Appendix), just as you've done for $F_\\text{planning}(q)$?**\n\nAll the other variational expressions have been provided somewhere in existing literature, so we didn't rederive them in this work. But we can indeed include them in an appendix if the reviewer feels that it would improve clarity.\n\nMarginal inference: This is the standard VI problem, see e.g., (Jordan et al., 1999).\n\nMMAP inference: This result is derived in (Liu and Ihler, 2013).\n\nMAP inference: Taking the variational problem of marginal inference and setting the entropy to zero (sometimes by multiplying it with a temperature that goes to 0) results in an LP problem that corresponds exactly to maximum a posteriori inference (Weiss et al., 2012). Further relaxing the marginal polytope into a local polytope gives rise to most well-known methods for approximate MAP inference, such as dual decomposition. See e.g., (Sontag et al., 2011).\n\n**$R({\\pmb x}, {\\pmb a})$ should be explicitly defined some where as the cumulative reward**\n\nOftentimes (and indeed in our experiments), rewards do not depend on the action and the above expression can be simplified to $R({\\pmb x})$. This is already defined in line 48. We will define the more general case $R({\\pmb x}, {\\pmb a})$.\n\n**Some derivation of the computational complexity would be good (e.g. in the Appendix).**\n\nThe computational complexity is mentioned in line 159, we will add a derivation to the appendix in the final version.\n\n**\"none of which corresponds with the exact “planning inference” from this work, which is exact.\" --- exact with respect to what?**\n\nThe quantity of interest of \"planning inference\" is the expected utility of an optimal planner. When running \"planning inference\" in a standard MDP, the result is exactly the best expected utility. This is exact with respect to, for instance, value iteration.\n\nThis means that, in a standard MDP, an agent that follows the best action as prescribed by \"planning as inference\" is an optimally-acting agent that will attain maximum reward, regardless of the MDP. However, given an agent that follows the optimal action according to any other type of inference (even if such inference is exact), can be fooled by a specially crafted MDP, and in general will not perform as well as the \"planning inference\" agent. We give a worked out example of this in appendix F.2, in which an MMAP agent is led astray by an MDP that is crafted to need high reactivity. Also, Figure 1[right] illustrates this point, where all inference types have a negative advantage, and $F^\\text{planning}$ has exactly 0 advantage.\n\n**First, from inspection of the entropy terms it is trivial to see that..\" --- to me this wasn't trivial for all the comparisons shown (...) In particular, for Marginal$^\\text{U}$**\n\nYes, an appendix with a proof of all the sequential bounding will be helpful, we will add it in the final version.\n\nIn particular, marginal inference can be combined with different normalizing constants. Regardless of the normalizing constant, its behavior is the same and the resulting planner will take the same actions and achieve the same reward. But in terms of bounding, different normalizing constants will have different effects.\n\nYour comment made us realize that a more in-depth analysis of the possible normalizing constants and their effect on bounding should be included in the paper. We will do that in the final version.\n\nFor upper bounding, the marginal entropy term\n\n$$H^\\text{Marginal}({\\pmb q}) = H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) + \\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t)$$\n\nclearly upper bounds the \"planning inference entropy term\"\n\n$$H^\\text{Planning}({\\pmb q}) = H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) + \\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}|x_t, a_t)$$\n\nsince $H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t) = H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}|  a_t, x_t)+ H_{\\pmb q}(a_t| x_t)$ and entropies are non-negative.\n\nFor lower-bounding, we can use a uniform weighting over trajectories and use the entropy term\n$H^{\\text{Marginal1}^\\text{U}}({\\pmb q})\n= H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) + \\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t) - (T-1)\\log N_aN_s^{N_e} - \\log N_s$\n\nIt is clear that $H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) \\leq \\log N_s$ and $H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t) \\leq \\log N_aN_s^{N_e}$, with equality being achieved when $\\pmb q$ is a uniform distribution. Therefore, $H^{\\text{Marginal1}^\\text{U}}({\\pmb q})$ is always non-positive, as required to lower bound $H^\\text{MAP}({\\pmb q})$.\n\nIf instead, we use a uniform weighting over actions, as suggested in our paper we have \n$H^{\\text{Marginal2}^\\text{U}}({\\pmb q})\n= H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) + \\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t) - (T-1)\\log N_a$\n\nSince $H_{\\pmb q}(a_t)\\leq \\log N_a$, it follows that $H^{\\text{Marginal}^\\text{U}}({\\pmb q}) \\leq H^\\text{MMAP}({\\pmb q})$ \n\nwhere\n\n$H^\\text{MMAP}({\\pmb q}) = H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) + \\sum_{t=1}^{T-1} H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t)-H_{\\pmb q}(a_t)$\n\nIf we further assume deterministic dynamics, then $H_{\\pmb q}(x_1) = 0$ and $H_{\\pmb q}(x_{t+1}, a_t| x_t)\\leq \\log N_a$, thus making $H^{\\text{Marginal2}^\\text{U}}({\\pmb q})$ non-positive, as required to lower bound $H^\\text{MAP}({\\pmb q})$.\n\n**I think it should be clarified that the MMAP objective is a lower bound to the planning objective (...) with a sentence like (...)**\n\nYour phrasing is clearer, we will adapt it and adopt it.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "VhtLV1CU9w", "reviewer": "Reviewer_us9u", "summary": "This paper studies 3 types of factor graph inference for planning and in particular their relationship to optimal planning. The well known $\\exp(\\lambda R(x, a, x'))$ factor is used. MAP inference computes the maximum energy configuration over states and actions which corresponds to zero posterior entropy. Marginal inference computes the joint over states and actions. Marginal MAP inference set the action entropy in marginal inference to zero. An interesting connection was made with the dual LP formulation of MDP. The method was further applied to factored state MDP. The relationship between MDP stochasticity and inference approximation to optimal planning was studied in the experiments.", "questions": "I don't have any outstanding questions for the authors.", "limitations": "This paper does not contain a limitations section.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "**Originality & significance**: The paper is original and the three types of inference have not been studied in prior \"planning as inference\" literature to my knowledge. The connection between the variational formulation and the dual LP formulation is also interesting. In the discussion on stochastic dynamics, the notion of \"reactivity\" is also interesting and formalizes intuition from prior work to some extent. \n\n**Quality & clarity**: The paper is well written and the notation and exposition are clear.", "weaknesses": "There isn't any salient weaknesses of the paper as far as I can tell. My impression is the results are somewhat \"expected\" given this type of \"planning as inference\" has been widely studied in prior work, at least empirically. \n\nOne thing that would be of interest is how \"reactivity\" interacts with online re-planning.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your time in reviewing this paper. We would like to address one of your comments:\n\n**One thing that would be of interest is how \"reactivity\" interacts with online re-planning.**\n\nWe do a worked out example in Appendix F.2, in which we show how for some MDPs online replanning is not as good as using a reactive policy when planning. In essence, an agent not only benefits from the ability to replan, but also from knowing ahead of time that it will have the ability to replan.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: The paper proposes a framework for establishing a correspondence between various inference queries in graphical models and planning in MDPs. The paper relies on variational inference approach to inference in graphical models, and unifies inference for planning with other type of queries. The theoretical results are confirmed by empirical evaluation on several domains.

While all or at least most reviewers welcomed the insights provided by the paper, most also pointed at lack of clarity of the presentation, as well as at the lack of rigor in definitions and theoretical analysis. Some of the concerns were addressed in the discussion between the authors and the reviewers, while others, in particular clarity of exposition and rigor of definitions, still stand. The reviewers conditioned their evaluations on improved clarity and less dependence on external background.

Based on the reviews and the discussions, I recommend accepting the paper for spotlight presentation . I believe that spotlight presentation strikes the right balance between exposure of the paper to the audience, and the need for more detailed and interactive discussion of paper details than a full-length oral presentation would provide.
Decision: Accept (spotlight)