Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficient Solution Algorithms for Factored MDPs

Guestrin, C., Koller, D., Parr, R., Venkataraman, S.·2003·Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of planning under uncertainty in large Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Factored MDPs represent a complex state space using state variables and the transition model using a dynamic Bayesian network. This representation often allows an exponential reduction in the representation size of structured MDPs, but the complexity of exact solution algorithms for such MDPs can grow exponentially in the representation size. In this paper, we present two approximate solution algorithms that exploit structure in factored MDPs. Both use an approximate value function represented as a linear combination of basis functions, where each basis function involves only a small subset of the domain variables. A key contribution of this paper is that it shows how the basic operations of both algorithms can be performed efficiently in closed form, by exploiting both additive and context-specific structure in a factored MDP. A central element of our algorithms is a novel linear program decomposition technique, analogous to variable elimination in Bayesian networks, which reduces an exponentially large LP to a provably equivalent, polynomial-sized one. One algorithm uses approximate linear programming, and the second approximate dynamic programming. Our dynamic programming algorithm is novel in that it uses an approximation based on max-norm, a technique that more directly minimizes the terms that appear in error bounds for approximate MDP algorithms. We provide experimental results on problems with over 10^40 states, demonstrating a promising indication of the scalability of our approach, and compare our algorithm to an existing state-of-the-art approach, showing, in some problems, exponential gains in computation time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1613/jair.1000

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Network topologies tested; the status of a machine is influence by the status of its parent in the network.
Figure 1 Network topologies tested; the status of a machine is influence by the status of its parent in the network.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Factored MDP example: from a network topology (a) we obtain the factored MDP representation (b) with the CPDs described in (c).
Figure 2 Factored MDP example: from a network topology (a) we obtain the factored MDP representation (b) with the CPDs described in (c).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 7 Number of constraints in the LP generated by the explicit state representation versus the factored LP construction for the solution of the ring problem with basis functions over single variables and approximate linear programming as the solution algorithm.
Figure 7 Number of constraints in the LP generated by the explicit state representation versus the factored LP construction for the solution of the ring problem with basis functions over single variables and approximate linear programming as the solution algorithm.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 11 Example CPDs for variable the Painting' = true represented as decision trees: (a) when the action is paint; (b) when the action is not paint. The same CPDs can be represented by probability rules as shown in (c) and (d), respectively.
Figure 11 Example CPDs for variable the Painting' = true represented as decision trees: (a) when the action is paint; (b) when the action is not paint. The same CPDs can be represented by probability rules as shown in (c) and (d), respectively.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 14 (a)-(c) Running times for policy iteration with max-norm projection on variants of the SysAdmin problem; (d) Fitting a polynomial to the running time for the 'Ring' topology.
Figure 14 (a)-(c) Running times for policy iteration with max-norm projection on variants of the SysAdmin problem; (d) Fitting a polynomial to the running time for the 'Ring' topology.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 15 (a) Relative error to optimal value function V ∗ and comparison to L 2 projection for 'Ring'; (b) For large models, measuring Bellman error after convergence.
Figure 15 (a) Relative error to optimal value function V ∗ and comparison to L 2 projection for 'Ring'; (b) For large models, measuring Bellman error after convergence.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 16 Approximate LP versus approximate PI on the SysAdmin problem with a 'Ring' topology: (a) running time; (b) estimated value of policy.
Figure 16 Approximate LP versus approximate PI on the SysAdmin problem with a 'Ring' topology: (a) running time; (b) estimated value of policy.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 17 Running time for Process-SysAdmin problem for various topologies: (a) 'Star'; (b) 'Ring'; (c) 'Reverse star' (with fit function).
Figure 17 Running time for Process-SysAdmin problem for various topologies: (a) 'Star'; (b) 'Ring'; (c) 'Reverse star' (with fit function).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 18 Fraction of total running time spent in CPLEX for the Process-SysAdmin problem with a 'Ring' topology.
Figure 18 Fraction of total running time spent in CPLEX for the Process-SysAdmin problem with a 'Ring' topology.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 19 Comparing Apricodd to rule-based approximate linear programming on the (a) Linear and (b) Expon problems.
Figure 19 Comparing Apricodd to rule-based approximate linear programming on the (a) Linear and (b) Expon problems.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 20 Comparing Apricodd to rule-based approximate linear programming with 'single+' basis functions on the Process-SysAdmin problem with 'Ring' topology (a) running time and (b) value of the resulting policy; and with 'Star' topology (c) running time and (d) value of the resulting policy.
Figure 20 Comparing Apricodd to rule-based approximate linear programming with 'single+' basis functions on the Process-SysAdmin problem with 'Ring' topology (a) running time and (b) value of the resulting policy; and with 'Star' topology (c) running time and (d) value of the resulting policy.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Arnborg, S., Corneil, D. G., & Proskurowski, A. (1987). Complexity of finding embeddings in a K-tree. SIAM Journal of Algebraic and Discrete Methods, 8 (2), 277 -284.
  2. Bellman, R., Kalaba, R., & Kotkin, B. (1963). Polynomial approximation -a new compu- tational technique in dynamic programming. Math. Comp., 17 (8), 155-161.
  3. Bellman, R. E. (1957). Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  4. Bertele, U., & Brioschi, F. (1972). Nonserial Dynamic Programming. Academic Press, New York.
  5. Boutilier, C., & Dearden, R. (1996). Approximating value trees in structured dynamic programming. In Proc. ICML, pp. 54-62.
  6. Boutilier, C., Dearden, R., & Goldszmidt, M. (1995). Exploiting structure in policy con- struction. In Proc. IJCAI, pp. 1104-1111.
  7. Cheney, E. W. (1982). Approximation Theory (2nd edition). Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, NY.
  8. Dean, T., Kaelbling, L. P., Kirman, J., & Nicholson, A. (1993). Planning with deadlines in stochastic domains. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), pp. 574-579, Washington, D.C. AAAI Press.
  9. Dean, T., & Givan, R. (1997). Model minimization in Markov decision processes. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI- 97), pp. 106-111, Providence, Rhode Island, Oregon. AAAI Press.
  10. Morgan Kaufmann.
  11. Guestrin, C. E., Koller, D., & Parr, R. (2001a). Max-norm projections for factored MDPs. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence (IJCAI-01), pp. 673 -680, Seattle, Washington.
  12. Morgan Kaufmann.
  13. Guestrin, C. E., Koller, D., & Parr, R. (2001b). Multiagent planning with factored MDPs. In 14th Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS-14), pp. 1523-1530, Vancouver, Canada.
  14. Hoey, J., St-Aubin, R., Hu, A., & Boutilier, C. (1999). SPUDD: Stochastic planning us- ing decision diagrams. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-99), pp. 279-288, Stockholm, Sweden.
  15. Morgan Kaufmann.
  16. Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (1984). Influence diagrams. In Howard, R. A., & Math- eson, J. E. (Eds.), Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, pp. 721-762. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, California.
  17. Kim, K.-E., & Dean, T. (2001). Solving factored Mdps using non-homogeneous partition- ing. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-01), pp. 683 -689, Seattle, Washington.
  18. Morgan Kaufmann.
  19. Morgan Kaufmann.
  20. Koller, D., & Parr, R. (2000). Policy iteration for factored MDPs. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-00), pp. 326 - 334, Stanford, California.
  21. Morgan Kaufmann.
  22. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.
  23. Schuurmans, D., & Patrascu, R. (2001). Direct value-approximation for factored MDPs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS-14), pp. 1579-1586, Vancouver, Canada.
  24. Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial (second edition). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  25. Jordan, M. I., Kearns, M. J., & Solla, S. A. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 10. The MIT Press.
  26. Tadepalli, P., & Ok, D. (1996). Scaling up average reward reinforcmeent learning by approx- imating the domain models and the value function. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, Bari, Italy.
  27. Morgan Kaufmann.
  28. Tatman, J. A., & Shachter, R. D. (1990). Dynamic programming and influence diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 20 (2), 365-379.
  29. Yedidia, J., Freeman, W., & Weiss, Y. (2001). Generalized belief propagation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13: Proceedings of the 2000 Conference, pp. 689-695, Denver, Colorado. MIT Press.
  30. Zhang, N., & Poole, D. (1999). On the role of context-specific independence in probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), pp. 1288-1293.
  31. Morgan Kaufmann.

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Guestrin, C., Koller, D., Parr, R., & Venkataraman, S.
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
19
Pages
399-468
ISSN
1076-9757
Cited by
169
References
25

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficient Solution Algorithms for Factored MDPs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1613/jair.1000
The paper
Guestrin, C., Koller, D., Parr, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Efficient Solution Algorithms for Factored MDPs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1000

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.