Convex is back: \\ Solving Belief MDPs via Convexity-Informed Deep Reinforcement Learning
Deep Reinforcement Learning;POMDP;Convexity
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Q1: the value function $V$ is known to be piece-wise linear and convex, but I am actually not quite sure what the action value function $Q$ is supposed to be like.
    Could you give some comments on this?
I find the direction this work is taking very interesting and potentially promising as, while the convexity of belief-based value functions was known to me, I have not seen work trying to actively exploit this.
Additionally, the paper identifies multiple ways of doing this, rather than just proposing one and run with it.

Overall, even though this strength section is small, I strongly believe that addressing some of the weaknesses described below will result in a good contribution.
This work proposes methods to exploit the convexity of the belief-based value functions in partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs).

In POMDPs, the distribution over the current state - only available when the dynamics are given - is a sufficient statistic for the whole history and sufficient for an optimal policy.
It is well-known that, in POMDPs, the value function - the expected return of any *belief* - is convex with respect to the belief.
Hence, this work argues justifiably, when learning the value function we could try to encode this behavior.
This work proposes several methods of encoding convexity, ranging from hard-coding convexity in a neural network through architecture decisions (positive weights and relu activation functions) to adding loss functions.

The proposed methods for encoding convexity are applied to dual Q-learning and tested on the tiger and rock sample environments, two typical (but small) POMDP problems.
W1: while typically not a huge problem, the quality of the written text needs some extensive polishing.
    There are quite a few harmless mistakes, such as the second sentence in the abstract starting with 'thus' despite the sentence not describing a consequence and that in an MDP the environment is stochastic and the consequence of the agent's actions is probabilistic (is that not the same?).
    Additionally, citations just kind of seem weird (why is a 2019 paper be cited after a statement about beliefs in POMDPs?).
    More importantly, there seem to be quite a few factual mistakes, such as claiming that the convergence of Bellman equation is an assumption (rather than proven).

W2: Unfortunately, while the idea is strong, the empirical evaluation is too weak.
    The number of environments and the reported results is minimal: two problems and only the performance at some point after training (rather than line plots, which could easily shown the sample efficiency that should arise).
    Additionally, other than on experiments where the dynamics were changed during testing, it seems that no significant performance gain was observed.
    Lastly, it is claimed changing the dynamics is a test of generalization and, thus, that the proposed method performing better means it generalizes better.
    However, generalization here should refer to generalizing to *new beliefs* *in the same environment*.
    I am not quite sure what it means that the proposed method works better on a different problem, but I am not quite convinced these experiments demonstrate generalization.

W3: while I appreciate the numerous methods proposed to encourage convexity in the action value function, there must be a literature on learning convex functions.
    Barely mentioning this is problematic: if they were not looked into then this must be done first and, if they were and used in this work, then they should have been more clearly mentioned as previous work rather than claiming their approaches as novel contributions.
    Though I might be wrong and no-one else is interested in learning convex functions.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Why the median and maximum over all training runs of a hyperparameter search was used?
The paper is generally easy to follow and clearly written, making it accessible to the readers.

The proposed approaches appear to be simple and relatively original.

Introduces soft-enforcement of convexity in NN for MDPs and POMDPs which has better results than hard-enforcement as per their numerical experiments.
This paper introduces a novel approach to solving POMDPs by incorporating the convexity property of the value function over the belief space. The authors propose two methods to enforce convexity in the value function: hard-enforced and soft-enforced convexity. These approaches were evaluated using the Dueling DQN architecture on two POMDP benchmark problems (Tiger and FieldVisionRockSample). Results demonstrate improved median and maximum performance, along with enhanced generalization, particularly in out-of-distribution settings.
A major concern with the paper is the approach and metrics used to evaluate the performance and conduct numerical results. Specifically, the authors rely on the median and maximum performance metrics across all training runs of a hyperparameter search, without explaining why these choices are appropriate. This approach could obscure a clear comparison between methods and may fail to reflect true performance variability.

To improve rigor and reliability, I suggest an alternative evaluation protocol: first, conduct a hyperparameter search to identify the best-performing parameters for each approach. Then, using these optimized parameters, run each method multiple times (e.g., at least 5 runs) and report the mean and a measure of variability, such as the 95% confidence interval. This approach would provide more robust and interpretable results, offering insights into the stability and consistency of each method. Additionally, including variability measures in the results would allow readers to assess the statistical significance and generalizability of the findings, strengthening the paper’s empirical contributions.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
* It is unclear why using ICNNs performs worse than promoting convexity indirectly through penalization. The paper suggests that adjusting ICNN weights may interfere with training, leading to inferior performance compared to the soft methods. However, this argument is unconvincing, as adjusting the ICNN weights to ensure network convexity - such as projecting negative weights onto the set of nonnegative reals during training - resembles a projected gradient descent approach. A more compelling argument for this phenomenon would be helpful.
* the numerical evaluation could include comparisons with classical POMDP methods, such as PBVI or QMDP, to demonstrate the advantages of using DRL for POMDPs compared to traditional approaches, thereby making the case more convincing for the readers.
* The paper proposes exploiting the convexity of the value function in POMDPs when learning solutions using DRL, an aspect that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been emphasized or published in prior work.
* The authors present and empirically analyze various convexity enforcement techniques, offering several hypotheses regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
The paper introduces hard and soft approaches to enforce convexity in value function approximators for POMDPs. Since value functions for POMDPs are inherently convex in belief states, the authors propose two methods to leverage this property when learning POMDP solutions using DQN. The first "hard enforcement" method involves designing value function approximators as input convex neural networks (ICNNs). The second "soft enforcement" approach adds penalization terms to the DQN loss function to encourage convexity in the value function approximators. Specifically, three types of penalization terms are presented, each corresponding to a condition equivalent to convexity under different smoothness assumptions. These methods are numerically compared with a standard deep RL approach without convexity enforcement. The results demonstrate that (i) the soft enforcement method generally performs better than the hard enforcement method, and (ii) among the soft enforcement methods, gradient-based penalization is the most preferable, outperforming the standard method without convexity enforcement.
* Although the paper appears to be the first to propose enforcing convexity in value function approximators for POMDPs, the contribution feels incremental and relatively minor. For instance, enforcing convexity through ICNN is simply an integration of ICNN into a dueling DQN, which is quite straightforward and easily conceivable.
* Regarding the soft methods, verifying the convexity of the value function requires sampling multiple belief states. A concern with this sampling approach is its scalability to high-dimensional belief spaces, as the number of samples needed for effective convexity verification would grow exponentially. This issue should be addressed by demonstrating the method on large-scale POMDPs beyond the two problems presented in the paper.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
* For the FVRS results in Fig. 4 and 5, what is the oracle performance, i.e., the POMDP policies that are not OOD for the test environments? It might be useful to show those values to understand the improvement of convexity regularization compared to the oracle. 
* How do the authors think this method could be adapted to continuous state POMDPs where the belief states are usually represented as Gaussians with mean and standard deviation as inputs to the value or policy network?
I think the method is well-motivated and original to my knowledge. The hypotheses are clear and well-executed at least for the OOD hypothesis.
This paper proposes to use convexity regularization for value function learning in POMDPs. The authors compared a few different ways to enforce or soft-enforce convexity against a non-regularized value function. The main hypotheses explored are 1) advantage of convexity regularization for learning efficiency and 2) advantage of convexity regularization for OOD generalization. The experiments were performed on the classic tiger problem and field vision rock sample problem. The results show improved median and max performance in OOD settings.
* The analysis of learning efficiency is not complete or conclusive. The authors acknowledged that for the tiger problem, it might be too simple to show substantial differences across methods. For the FVRS problem, I don't think the authors studied learning efficiency. Although I think learning efficiency is less crucial for the problem studied. 
* The experimental problems/environments might be too simple to understand the potential of the proposed method. I believe both problems can be solved by point-based value iteration, i.e., no stronger function approximation is needed. What would be of interest is to also demonstrate how the proposed method can be applied to for example partially observable continuous state-space problems that are nowadays standard benchmarks for meta RL (e.g., Mujoco problems in [Varibad](https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08348))
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024convex,
title={Convex is back: {\textbackslash}{\textbackslash} Solving Belief {MDP}s via Convexity-Informed Deep Reinforcement Learning},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=in0Nmo8Ojd},
note={under review}
}
We present a novel method for Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), incorporating the convex property of the value function over the belief space in Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). We thus introduce hard- and soft-enforced convexity as two different approaches, and compare their performance against standard DRL on two well-known POMDP environments, namely the Tiger and FieldVisionRockSample problems. Our findings show that including the convexity feature can substantially increase the median and/or maximum performance of the agents, especially when testing on out-of-distribution domains.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Deep Reinforcement Learning POMDP Convexity
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/0e674fdcd6684a1f391455af7d6e113c3fbd2e92.pdf
reinforcement learning
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Convex is back: \\ Solving Belief MDPs via Convexity-Informed Deep Reinforcement Learning
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission