Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3/2015

01-05-2015

Scalable solutions of interactive POMDPs using generalized and bounded policy iteration

Authors: Ekhlas Sonu, Prashant Doshi

Published in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Issue 3/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Policy iteration algorithms for partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) offer the benefits of quicker convergence compared to value iteration and the ability to operate directly on the solution, which usually takes the form of a finite state automaton. However, the finite state controller tends to grow quickly in size across iterations due to which its evaluation and improvement become computationally costly. Bounded policy iteration provides a way of keeping the controller size fixed while improving it monotonically until convergence, although it is susceptible to getting trapped in local optima. Despite these limitations, policy iteration algorithms are viable alternatives to value iteration, and allow POMDPs to scale. In this article, we generalize the bounded policy iteration technique to problems involving multiple agents. Specifically, we show how we may perform bounded policy iteration with anytime behavior in settings formalized by the interactive POMDP framework, which generalizes POMDPs to non-stationary contexts shared with multiple other agents. Although policy iteration has been extended to decentralized POMDPs, the context there is strictly cooperative. Its novel generalization in this article makes it useful in non-cooperative settings as well. As interactive POMDPs involve modeling other agents sharing the environment, we ascribe controllers to predict others’ actions, with the benefit that the controllers compactly represent the model space. We show how we may exploit the agent’s initial belief, often available, toward further improving the controller, particularly in large domains, though at the expense of increased computations, which we compensate. We extensively evaluate the approach on multiple problem domains with some that are significantly large in their dimensions, and in contexts with uncertainty about the other agent’s frames and those involving multiple other agents, and demonstrate its properties and scalability.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Note that the definition of a belief rests on first defining the underlying state space. The state space is not explicitly stated in the intentional model for brevity.
 
2
One way of obtaining a POMDP at level 0 is to use a fixed distribution over the other agent’s actions and fold it into \(T_j, O_j\) and \(R_j\) as noise.
 
3
Precluding considerations of computability, if the prior belief over \(IS_{i,l}\) is a probability density function, then \(\sum _{is_{i,l}|\hat{\theta }_j=\hat{\theta }_j'}\) is replaced by an integral over the continuous space. In this case, \(Pr(b'_{j,l-1}| b_{j,l-1}, a_j, o_j)\) is replaced with a Dirac-delta function, \(\delta _D(SE_{\theta _{j,l-1}(b_{j,l-1},a_j,o_j)} - b'_{j,l-1})\), where \(SE_{\theta _{j,l-1}}(\cdot )\) denotes state estimation involving the belief update of agent \(j\). These substitutions also apply elsewhere as appropriate.
 
4
A node in the controller mapped to an action distribution may be split into multiple nodes. Each node is deterministically mapped to a single action and incoming edges to the original node now connect to the split nodes with the action distribution.
 
5
Because probability measures are countably additive, Eq. (6) remains mathematically well-defined although the subset of intentional models that map to some \(f_{j,l-1}\) could be countably infinite. Of course, in practice we consider a finite set of intentional models for the other agent.
 
6
Example problems such as the multiagent tiger problem or user-specified problems may be solved using an implementation of I-BPI in our new online problem-solving environment using POMDP-based frameworks at http://​lhotse.​cs.​uga.​edu/​pomdp.
 
7
Policy iteration [19] may result in near-optimal controllers and provides an upper bound for BPI. An implementation of policy iteration for solving these controllers did not converge even for the smaller multiagent tiger problem due to the large number of nodes added at each iteration. In particular, it failed to extend beyond two steps of improvement.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Amato, C., Bernstein, D. S., & Zilberstein, S. (2010). Optimizing fixed-size stochastic controllers for POMDPs and decentralized POMDPs. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 21(3), 293–320.CrossRef Amato, C., Bernstein, D. S., & Zilberstein, S. (2010). Optimizing fixed-size stochastic controllers for POMDPs and decentralized POMDPs. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 21(3), 293–320.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Amato, C., Bonet, B. & Zilberstein, S. (2010). Finite-state controllers based on Mealy machines for centralized and decentralized POMDPs. In Twenty Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1052–1058. Amato, C., Bonet, B. & Zilberstein, S. (2010). Finite-state controllers based on Mealy machines for centralized and decentralized POMDPs. In Twenty Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1052–1058.
4.
go back to reference Bernstein, D. S., Amato, C., Hansen, E., & Zilberstein, S. (2009). Policy iteration for decentralized control of Markov decision processes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34, 89–132.MATHMathSciNet Bernstein, D. S., Amato, C., Hansen, E., & Zilberstein, S. (2009). Policy iteration for decentralized control of Markov decision processes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34, 89–132.MATHMathSciNet
5.
go back to reference Bernstein, D. S., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27(4), 819–840.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Bernstein, D. S., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27(4), 819–840.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
6.
7.
go back to reference Cassandra, A. R., Littman, M. L., & Zhang, N. L. (1997). Incremental pruning: A simple, fast, exact method for partially observable Markov decision processes. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Cassandra, A. R., Littman, M. L., & Zhang, N. L. (1997). Incremental pruning: A simple, fast, exact method for partially observable Markov decision processes. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
8.
go back to reference Dennett, D. (1986). Intentional systems. Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dennett, D. (1986). Intentional systems. Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
go back to reference Dongarra, J., Lumsdaine, A., Pozo, R. & Remington, K. (1992). A sparse matrix library in c++ for high performance architectures. In Second Object Oriented Numerics Conference, pp. 214–218. Dongarra, J., Lumsdaine, A., Pozo, R. & Remington, K. (1992). A sparse matrix library in c++ for high performance architectures. In Second Object Oriented Numerics Conference, pp. 214–218.
10.
go back to reference Doshi, P. (2012). Decision making in complex multiagent settings: A tale of two frameworks. AI Magazine, 33(4), 82–95. Doshi, P. (2012). Decision making in complex multiagent settings: A tale of two frameworks. AI Magazine, 33(4), 82–95.
11.
go back to reference Doshi, P., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. (2009). Monte Carlo sampling methods for approximating interactive POMDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34, 297–337.MATH Doshi, P., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. (2009). Monte Carlo sampling methods for approximating interactive POMDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34, 297–337.MATH
12.
go back to reference Doshi, P. & Perez, D. (2008). Generalized point based value iteration for interactive POMDPs. In Twenty third conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 63–68). Doshi, P. & Perez, D. (2008). Generalized point based value iteration for interactive POMDPs. In Twenty third conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 63–68).
13.
go back to reference Doshi, P., Qu, X., Goodie, A. & Young, D. (2010). Modeling recursive reasoning in humans using empirically informed interactive POMDPs. In International autonomous agents and multiagent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1223–1230). Doshi, P., Qu, X., Goodie, A. & Young, D. (2010). Modeling recursive reasoning in humans using empirically informed interactive POMDPs. In International autonomous agents and multiagent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1223–1230).
14.
go back to reference Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (1998). The theory of learning in games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MATH Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (1998). The theory of learning in games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MATH
15.
go back to reference Giudice, A. D. & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2007). Towards strategic Kriegspiel play with opponent modeling. In Game theoretic and decision-theoretic agents, AAAI spring symposium (pp. 17–22). Giudice, A. D. & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2007). Towards strategic Kriegspiel play with opponent modeling. In Game theoretic and decision-theoretic agents, AAAI spring symposium (pp. 17–22).
16.
go back to reference Giudice, A. D. & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2009). Towards strategic Kriegspiel play with opponent modeling (extended abstract). In Autonomous agents and multiagent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1265–1266) Giudice, A. D. & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2009). Towards strategic Kriegspiel play with opponent modeling (extended abstract). In Autonomous agents and multiagent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1265–1266)
17.
go back to reference Gmytrasiewicz, P. J., & Doshi, P. (2005). A framework for sequential planning in multiagent settings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 49–79.MATH Gmytrasiewicz, P. J., & Doshi, P. (2005). A framework for sequential planning in multiagent settings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 49–79.MATH
18.
go back to reference Guo, Q., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. (2011). Modeling bounded rationality of agents during interactions (extended abstract). In International joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1285–1286). Guo, Q., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. (2011). Modeling bounded rationality of agents during interactions (extended abstract). In International joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1285–1286).
19.
go back to reference Hansen, E. (1998). Solving POMDPs by searching in policy space. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 211–219). Hansen, E. (1998). Solving POMDPs by searching in policy space. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 211–219).
20.
go back to reference Hansen, E. (2008). Sparse stochastic finite-state controllers for POMDPs. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) (pp. 256–263). AUAI Press. Hansen, E. (2008). Sparse stochastic finite-state controllers for POMDPs. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) (pp. 256–263). AUAI Press.
21.
22.
go back to reference Hoey, J., & Poupart, P. (2005). Solving POMDPs with continuous or large discrete observation spaces. In International joint conference on AI (IJCAI) (pp. 1332–1338). Hoey, J., & Poupart, P. (2005). Solving POMDPs with continuous or large discrete observation spaces. In International joint conference on AI (IJCAI) (pp. 1332–1338).
23.
go back to reference Hopcroft, J., & Ullman, J. (1979). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading, MA: Addison-wesley.MATH Hopcroft, J., & Ullman, J. (1979). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading, MA: Addison-wesley.MATH
24.
go back to reference Kaelbling, L., Littman, M., & Cassandra, A. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101, 99–134.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Kaelbling, L., Littman, M., & Cassandra, A. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101, 99–134.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
25.
go back to reference Klee, V., & Minty, G. J. (1972). How good is the simplex algorithm? In O. Shisha (Ed.), Inequalities (Vol. III, pp. 159–175). New York: Academic Press. Klee, V., & Minty, G. J. (1972). How good is the simplex algorithm? In O. Shisha (Ed.), Inequalities (Vol. III, pp. 159–175). New York: Academic Press.
26.
go back to reference Kurniawati, H., Hsu, D., & Lee, W. S. (2008). SARSOP: Efficient point-based POMDP planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces. In Robotics: Science and Systems (pp. 65–72). Kurniawati, H., Hsu, D., & Lee, W. S. (2008). SARSOP: Efficient point-based POMDP planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces. In Robotics: Science and Systems (pp. 65–72).
27.
go back to reference Meissner, C. (2011). A complex game of cat and mouse. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Science and Technology Review (pp. 18–21). Meissner, C. (2011). A complex game of cat and mouse. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Science and Technology Review (pp. 18–21).
28.
go back to reference Mertens, J., & Zamir, S. (1985). Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 14, 1–29.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Mertens, J., & Zamir, S. (1985). Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 14, 1–29.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
29.
go back to reference Nair, R., Tambe, M., Yokoo, M., Pynadath, D., & Marsella, S. (2003). Taming decentralized POMDPs: Towards efficient policy computation for multiagent settings. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 705–711). Nair, R., Tambe, M., Yokoo, M., Pynadath, D., & Marsella, S. (2003). Taming decentralized POMDPs: Towards efficient policy computation for multiagent settings. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 705–711).
30.
go back to reference Ng, B., Meyers, C., Boakye, K., & Nitao, J. (2010). Towards applying interactive POMDPs to real-world adversary modeling. In Innovative applications in artificial intelligence (IAAI) (pp. 1814–1820). Ng, B., Meyers, C., Boakye, K., & Nitao, J. (2010). Towards applying interactive POMDPs to real-world adversary modeling. In Innovative applications in artificial intelligence (IAAI) (pp. 1814–1820).
31.
go back to reference Papadimitriou, C. H., & Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1987). The complexity of Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 12(3), 441–450.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Papadimitriou, C. H., & Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1987). The complexity of Markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 12(3), 441–450.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
32.
go back to reference Pineau, J., Gordon, G., & Thrun, S. (2006). Anytime point-based value iteration for large POMDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 27, 335–380.MATH Pineau, J., Gordon, G., & Thrun, S. (2006). Anytime point-based value iteration for large POMDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 27, 335–380.MATH
33.
go back to reference Poupart, P., & Boutilier, C. (2003). Bounded finite state controllers. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (pp. 823–830). Poupart, P., & Boutilier, C. (2003). Bounded finite state controllers. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (pp. 823–830).
34.
go back to reference Poupart, P., & Boutilier, C. (2004). VDCBPI: An approximate algorithm scalable for large-scale POMDPs. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (pp. 1081–1088). Poupart, P., & Boutilier, C. (2004). VDCBPI: An approximate algorithm scalable for large-scale POMDPs. In Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) (pp. 1081–1088).
35.
go back to reference Rathnasabapathy, B., Doshi, P., & Gmytrasiewicz, P.J. (2006). Exact solutions to interactive POMDPs using behavioral equivalence. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1025–1032). Rathnasabapathy, B., Doshi, P., & Gmytrasiewicz, P.J. (2006). Exact solutions to interactive POMDPs using behavioral equivalence. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems conference (AAMAS) (pp. 1025–1032).
36.
go back to reference Seuken, S., & Zilberstein, S. (2008). Formal models and algorithms for decentralized decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 17(2), 190–250.CrossRef Seuken, S., & Zilberstein, S. (2008). Formal models and algorithms for decentralized decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 17(2), 190–250.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Seymour, R., & Peterson, G. L. (2009). Responding to sneaky agents in multi-agent domains. In Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (FLAIRS) (pp. 99–104). Seymour, R., & Peterson, G. L. (2009). Responding to sneaky agents in multi-agent domains. In Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (FLAIRS) (pp. 99–104).
38.
go back to reference Seymour, R., & Peterson, G. L. (2009). A trust-based multiagent system. In IEEE international conference on computational science and engineering (pp. 109–116). Seymour, R., & Peterson, G. L. (2009). A trust-based multiagent system. In IEEE international conference on computational science and engineering (pp. 109–116).
39.
go back to reference Smallwood, R., & Sondik, E. (1973). The optimal control of partially observable Markov decision processes over a finite horizon. Operations Research, 21, 1071–1088.CrossRefMATH Smallwood, R., & Sondik, E. (1973). The optimal control of partially observable Markov decision processes over a finite horizon. Operations Research, 21, 1071–1088.CrossRefMATH
40.
go back to reference Smith, T., & Simmons, R. (2004). Heuristic search value iteration for POMDPs. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 520–527). Smith, T., & Simmons, R. (2004). Heuristic search value iteration for POMDPs. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 520–527).
41.
go back to reference Sondik, E. J. (1978). The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over the infinite horizon: Discounted cost. Operations Research, 26(2), 282–304.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Sondik, E. J. (1978). The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over the infinite horizon: Discounted cost. Operations Research, 26(2), 282–304.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
42.
go back to reference Spielman, D. A., & Teng, S. H. (2004). Smoothed analysis of algorithms: Why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time. Journal of the ACM, 51(3), 385–463.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet Spielman, D. A., & Teng, S. H. (2004). Smoothed analysis of algorithms: Why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time. Journal of the ACM, 51(3), 385–463.CrossRefMATHMathSciNet
43.
go back to reference Wang, F. (2013). An I-POMDP based multi-agent architecture for dialogue tutoring. In: International conference on advanced information and communication technology for education (ICAICTE) (pp. 486–489). Wang, F. (2013). An I-POMDP based multi-agent architecture for dialogue tutoring. In: International conference on advanced information and communication technology for education (ICAICTE) (pp. 486–489).
44.
go back to reference Woodward, M. P., & Wood, R. J. (2012). Learning from humans as an I-POMDP. CoRR abs/1204.0274. Woodward, M. P., & Wood, R. J. (2012). Learning from humans as an I-POMDP. CoRR abs/1204.0274.
45.
go back to reference Wunder, M., Kaisers, M., Yaros, J., & Littman, M. (2011). Using iterated reasoning to predict opponent strategies. In International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 593–600). Wunder, M., Kaisers, M., Yaros, J., & Littman, M. (2011). Using iterated reasoning to predict opponent strategies. In International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 593–600).
46.
go back to reference Young, S., Gai, M., Keizer, S., Mairesse, F., Schatzmann, J., Thomson, B., et al. (2010). The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech and Language, 24(2), 150–174.CrossRef Young, S., Gai, M., Keizer, S., Mairesse, F., Schatzmann, J., Thomson, B., et al. (2010). The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech and Language, 24(2), 150–174.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Zeng, Y., & Doshi, P. (2012). Exploiting model equivalences for solving interactive dynamic influence diagrams. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 43, 211–255.MATHMathSciNet Zeng, Y., & Doshi, P. (2012). Exploiting model equivalences for solving interactive dynamic influence diagrams. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 43, 211–255.MATHMathSciNet
Metadata
Title
Scalable solutions of interactive POMDPs using generalized and bounded policy iteration
Authors
Ekhlas Sonu
Prashant Doshi
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9261-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3/2015 Go to the issue

Premium Partner