This talk proposes a very simple “baseline architecture” for a learning agent that can handle stochastic, partially observable environments. The architecture uses reinforcement learning together with a method for representing temporal processes as graphical models. I will discuss methods for leaming the parameters and structure of such representations from sensory inputs, and for computing posterior probabilities. Some open problems remain before we can try out the complete agent; more arise when we consider scaling up. A second theme of the talk will be whether reinforcement learning can provide a good model of animal and human learning. To answer this question, we must do inverse reinforcement learning: given the observed behaviour, what reward signal, if any, is being optimized? This seems to be a very interesting problem for the COLT, UAI, and ML communities, and has been addressed in econometrics under the heading of structural estimation of Markov decision processes. 1 Learning in uncertain environments AI is about the construction of intelligent agents, i.e., systems that perceive and act effectively (according to some performance measure) in an environment. I have argued elsewhere Russell and Norvig (1995) that most AI research has focused on environments that are static, deterministic, discrete, and fully observable. What is to be done when, as in the real world, the environment is dynamic, stochastic, continuous, and partially observable? ‘This paper draws on a variety of research efforts supported by NSF @I-9634215), ONR (N00014-97-l-0941), and AR0 (DAAH04-96-1-0341). Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or p.art of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for prolit or commercial adwantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise. to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific pemlission and/or a fee. COLT 98 Madison WI IJSA Copyright ACM 1998 1-5X1 13-057--0/9X/ 7...$5.00 In recent years, reinforcement learning (also called neurodynamic programming) has made rapid progress as an approachfor building agents automatically (Sutton, 1988; Kaelbling et al., 1996; Bertsekas & Tsitsiklis, 1996). The basic idea is that the performance measure is made available to the agent in the form of a rewardfunction specifying the reward for each state that the agent passes through. The performance measure is then the sum of the rewards obtained. For example, when a bumble bee forages, the reward function at each time step might be some combination of the distance flown (weighted negatively) and the nectar ingested. Reinforcement learning (RL) methods are essentially online algorithmd for solving Markovdecisionprocesses (MDPs). An MDP is defined by the reward function and a model, that is, the state transition probabilities conditioned on each possible action. RL algorithms can be model-based, where the agent learns a model, or model-free-e.g., Q-learning citeWatkins: 1989, which learns just a function Q(s, a) specifying the long-term value of taking action a in state s and acting optimally thereafter. Despite their successes, RL methods have been restricted largely tofully observable MDPs, in which the sensory input at each state is sufficient to identify the state. Obviously, in the real world, we must often deal with partially observable MDPs (POMDPs). Astrom (1965) proved that optimal decisions in POMDPs depend on the belief state b at each point in time, i.e., the posterior probability distribution over all possible actual states, given all evidence to date. The functions V and Q then become functions of b instead of s. Parr and Russell (1995) describes a very simple POMDP RL algorithm using an explicit representation of b as a vector of probabilities, and McCallum (1993) shows a way to approximate the belief state using recent percept sequences. Neither approach is likely to scale up to situations with large numbers of state variables and long-term temporal dependencies. What is needed is a way of representing the model compactly and updating the belief state efficiently given the model and each new observation. Dynamic Bayesian networks (Dean & Kanazawa, 1989) seem to have some of the required properties; in particular, they have significant advantages over other approaches such as Kalman filters and hidden Markov models. Our baseline architecture, shown in Figure 1, uses DBNs to represent and update the belief state as new sensor information arrives. Given a representation for b, the reward signal is used to learn a Q-function represented by some “black-box” function approximator such as a neural network. Provided we can handle hybrid (dis-