post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:58:59.955Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

let be a helper function that maps each  to .

 

This function is ill-defined outside the vertices.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:37:40.734Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

or , we want  and , so that the actions available are just those of the state in the sub-environment. To achieve this we define 

 

It seems that you're using Ai and Pi to denote both the action spaces of the top environments and the action space assignment functions of the bottom environments. In addition, there is an implicit assumption that the bottom environments share the same list of action spaces. This is pretty confusing.

Replies from: arjun-p
comment by arjunpi (arjun-p) · 2024-07-30T17:28:26.253Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not. I guess this is the part that makes it confusing

for readability we define  and  to be the accessible and outer action spaces of  respectively

Do you have a suggestion for alternate notation? I use this because we often need to refer to the action space corresponding to a state. I think this would be needed even with the language framing.

(I also assigned  to make it more readable)

Replies from: vanessa-kosoy
comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-08-03T11:18:06.665Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You can use e.g. subscripts to refer to indices of the action space list and superscripts to refer to indices of the subenvironment list. 

Replies from: arjun-p
comment by arjunpi (arjun-p) · 2024-08-06T19:43:11.501Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't think this will work because we are already using subscripts to denote which environment's list we are referring to

Replies from: vanessa-kosoy
comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-08-07T07:06:15.424Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes, my point is that currently subscripts refer to both subenvironments and entries in the action space list. I suggest changing one of these two into superscripts.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:29:45.829Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

such that 

 

Is A(Ei) supposed to be just Ai?

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:17:38.269Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

μ×:=μ1×⋯×μk×δ

 

Unclear what delta is here. Is it supposed to be p?

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:06:48.105Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

An atomic environment is constructed by directly providing

 

The transition kernel is missing from this list.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T06:04:50.529Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • a vector space  and linear maps  and  such that for any .
  • a H-polytope  that we call the occupancy polytope

 

Confusing: you're using Q before you defined it. Also, instead of writing "s.t." in the subscript, you can write ":"

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T05:56:16.026Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Let's view each accessible action space  as the set of randomized policies over .

 

Seems worth to clarify that this representation is non-unique: multiple distribution over V(A) can correspond to the same point in A.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T05:50:31.854Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

where each  and  is an HV-polytope

 

Too restrictive. P can be an H-polytope, doesn't need to be an HV-polytope.

comment by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2024-07-15T05:35:09.974Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

efficiently[1]

 

The footnote is missing