mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TERC: A Transfer Entropy Redundancy Criterion for State Variable Selection in Reinforcement Learning

arXiv 2401.11512 ↗First posted 21 Jan 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.ITcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Identifying the most suitable variables to represent the state is a fundamental challenge in Reinforcement Learning (RL). These variables must efficiently capture the information necessary for making optimal decisions. In order to address this problem, in this paper, we introduce the Transfer Entropy Redundancy Criterion (TERC), an information-theoretic criterion, which determines if there is entropy transferred from observable state variables to actions during training. We define an algorithm based on TERC that provably excludes variables from the observable state that do not affect the agent's policy during learning. This yields compact state representations that reduce inference time by up to 2.6 times. Our approach is policy-dependent, making it agnostic to the underlying learning algorithm. The efficiency gains we demonstrate arise at retraining and inference time on the reduced state. Our method improves both retraining and inference efficiency. We demonstrate its effectiveness across three distinct algorithm classes, namely tabular Q-learning, Actor-Critic, and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), evaluated in a range of environments. Furthermore, to highlight the differences between the proposed methodology and the current state-of-the-art feature selection approaches, we present a series of controlled experiments on synthetic data, before generalizing to real-world decision-making tasks. We also introduce a representation of the problem that compactly captures the transfer of information from observable state variables to actions as Bayesian networks.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 42 of its 85 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jan 2024.

Builds on

42 of 85 references.

References · 42

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  3. 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,662
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2016OpenAI Gymcited by 1,684
  7. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  8. 2018Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximizationcited by 1,265
  9. 2020CURL: Contrastive Unsupervised Representations for Reinforcement Learningcited by 745
  10. 2019Learning Representations by Maximizing Mutual Information Across Viewscited by 733
  11. 2019On Variational Bounds of Mutual Informationcited by 550
  12. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 341
30 more
  1. 2020Data-Efficient Reinforcement Learning with Self-Predictive Representationscited by 309
  2. 2020Decoupling Representation Learning from Reinforcement Learningcited by 263
  3. 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
  4. 2016Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning Modelscited by 212
  5. 2019DeepMDP: Learning Continuous Latent Space Models for Representation Learningcited by 204
  6. 2019Reinforcement Learning in Feature Space: Matrix Bandit, Kernels, and Regret Boundcited by 199
  7. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 198
  8. 2022The Carbon Footprint of Machine Learning Training Will Plateau, Then Shrinkcited by 183
  9. 2015Deep Spatial Autoencoders for Visuomotor Learningcited by 149
  10. 2019Understanding the Limitations of Variational Mutual Information Estimatorscited by 140
  11. 2018State Representation Learning for Control: An Overviewcited by 125
  12. 2020True to the Model or True to the Data?cited by 123
  13. 2019Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainabilitycited by 114
  14. 2018Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 98
  15. 2018Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanationscited by 83
  16. 2017Virtual to Real Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Drivingcited by 79
  17. 2023Learning to Maximize Mutual Information for Dynamic Feature Selectioncited by 54
  18. 2022WeightedSHAP: analyzing and improving Shapley based feature attributionscited by 36
  19. 2020Learning to Locomote: Understanding How Environment Design Matters for Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 27
  20. 2021A Rigorous Information-Theoretic Definition of Redundancy and Relevancy in Feature Selection Based on (Partial) Information Decompositioncited by 25
  21. 2020Sparse Feature Selection Makes Batch Reinforcement Learning More Sample Efficientcited by 24
  22. 2019Partner Selection for the Emergence of Cooperation in Multi-Agent Systems Using Reinforcement Learningcited by 20
  23. 2017Forward-Backward Selection with Early Droppingcited by 18
  24. 2018Learning State Representations for Query Optimization with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 14
  25. 2023Automatic Noise Filtering with Dynamic Sparse Training in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 13
  26. 2016Variational Information Maximization for Feature Selectioncited by 7
  27. 2023Sequential Knockoffs for Variable Selection in Reinforcement Learningcited by 7
  28. 2022Ultra-marginal Feature Importance: Learning from Data with Causal Guaranteescited by 6
  29. 2018Generating Interpretable Fuzzy Controllers using Particle Swarm Optimization and Genetic Programmingcited by 5
  30. 2023Causal Feature Selection via Transfer Entropycited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1.

3 papers.