PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Identifying Latent State Transition Processes for Individualized Reinforcement Learning

Yuewen Sun, Biwei Huang, Yu Yao, xdo-zen@kddi.com, Xinshuai Dong, Roberto Legaspi, Kazushi Ikeda, Peter Spirtes, Kun Zhang

reinforcement learningindividualized reinforcement learninglatent state transitionidentifiability
81.30100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
83.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±23 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
75.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

In recent years, reinforcement learning (RL) has been increasingly applied to systems that interact with individuals in various domains, such as healthcare, education, and e-commerce. When an RL agent interacts with individuals, individual-specific factors, ranging from personal preferences to physiological nuances, may causally influence state transitions, such as health conditions, learning progress, or user selections. Consequently, different individuals may exhibit different state transition processes. Understanding these individualized state-transition processes is crucial for making individualized policies. In practice, however, identifying these state-transition processes is challenging, especially since individual-specific factors often remain latent. In this paper, we present a practical method that effectively learns these processes from observed state-action trajectories, backed by theoretical guarantees. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide a theoretical guarantee for identifying the state-transition processes involving latent individual-specific factors. Our experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our method can effectively identify the latent state-transition processes and help learn individualized RL policies.

Author context

Most prolific author: 26 submissions (credibility 0.05).

Delta if applied: -3.4 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)