arXiv Machine Learning

Topological Necessities: Mechanism-Invariant Strategic Subgoals for Cross-Embodiment Goal-Conditioned Control

The paper introduces topological necessities—mechanism‑invariant subgoals derived from the topology of successful trajectories—used to guide long‑horizon goal‑conditioned reinforcement learning. By computing homology in dimensions 0 and 1 over a transport‑weighted carrier, the authors obtain an enumerable gate set that forms a recursive topological gate hierarchy. These certified gates transfer across different embodiments (e.g., from PointMaze to Ant and Humanoid) without retraining, achieving state‑of‑the‑art performance on several benchmark tasks.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 23

Differentiable Policy Transport over Multi-Layer Network Feasibility Geometry

The paper introduces Network Feasibility Geometry Reinforcement Learning (NFG‑RL), a method that enforces multi‑layer network constraints—such as interference, power‑rate coupling, flow conservation, service chains, capacity, latency, and reliability—by transporting a proto‑policy through a differentiable feasibility map. By compiling heterogeneous constraints into typed residual blocks and using a variational transport operator, NFG‑RL ensures almost‑sure feasible execution and shapes exploration and gradients to respect active constraints. Experiments on two wireless‑edge surrogate environments show that NFG‑RL boosts feasible utility by 37.5–41.5 %, cuts raw‑action violations by 48.5–60.8 %, and reduces P99 delay by 57.0–75.5 % compared to leading baselines.

By Zuyuan Zhang, Zeyu Fang, Mahdi Imani, Nathaniel D. Bastian, Tian Lan
arXiv AI
Jul 20

From Black Box to Executable Logic: Explainable Reinforcement Learning through Prolog Expert Systems

arXiv:2607. 15459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A trained deep reinforcement learning policy is a black box, and we ask whether it can be made explainable by rewriting it as an executable logic program that reproduces its behaviour and that a person can read, a logic engine can run, and an optimizer can edit.

By Eduardo C. Garrido-Merch\'an
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Collective Counterfactual Planning: Coordination, Consent, and Verification under Representational Constraints

The paper introduces Collective Counterfactual Planning (CCP), a formal model describing how teams coordinate tasks that no single member can handle alone, constrained not by capability but by representational geometry. CCP defines four critical gates—exogenous implementation coalitions, conception, consent, and task-relative verification—that determine whether a team can achieve and legitimately recognize a conjunctive goal. The authors present the Collective Counterfactual Solvability (CCS) problem, separating geometric feasibility, executable attainment, and validated completion, and provide a sound and complete four-step solvability scheme under exact representation of relay closure.

By Chainarong Amornbunchornvej