We have shown experimentally that our method is effective in a variety of domains; however, other problem domains may require additional hyperparameter tuning, which can be expensive.

However, in domains where precise and succinct expert state information is available, agents trained onsuchexpert state features usually outperform agents trained onrichobservations.

Blind-spot mass is a Good-Turing framework for quantifying deployment coverage risk in machine learning. In modern ML systems, operational state distributions are often heavy-tailed, implying that a long tail of valid but rare states is structurally under-supported in finite training and evaluation data. This creates a form of 'coverage blindness': models can appear accurate on standard test sets yet remain unreliable across large regions of the deployment state space. We propose blind-spot mass B_n(tau), a deployment metric estimating the total probability mass assigned to states whose empirical support falls below a threshold tau. B_n(tau) is computed using Good-Turing unseen-species estimation and yields a principled estimate of how much of the operational distribution lies in reliability-critical, under-supported regimes. We further derive a coverage-imposed accuracy ceiling, decomposing overall performance into supported and blind components and separating capacity limits from data limits. We validate the framework in wearable human activity recognition (HAR) using wrist-worn inertial data. We then replicate the same analysis in the MIMIC-IV hospital database with 275 admissions, where the blind-spot mass curve converges to the same 95% at tau = 5 across clinical state abstractions. This replication across structurally independent domains - differing in modality, feature space, label space, and application - shows that blind-spot mass is a general ML methodology for quantifying combinatorial coverage risk, not an application-specific artifact. Blind-spot decomposition identifies which activities or clinical regimes dominate risk, providing actionable guidance for industrial practitioners on targeted data collection, normalization/renormalization, and physics- or domain-informed constraints for safer deployment.

We propose a recurrent extension of the Ladder networks whose structure is motivated by the inference required in hierarchical latent variable models. We demonstrate that the recurrent Ladder is able to handle a wide variety of complex learning tasks that benefit from iterative inference and temporal modeling. The architecture shows close-to-optimal results on temporal modeling of video data, competitive results on music modeling, and improved perceptual grouping based on higher order abstractions, such as stochastic textures and motion cues.

In this paper, we present an approach for doing so. Given a demonstration of a path, a first network generates an abstraction of the path. Equipped with this abstraction, a second network then observes the world and decides how to act in order to retrace the path under noisy actuation and a changing environment. The two networks are optimized end-to-end at training time. We evaluate the method in two realistic simulators, performing path following both forwards and backwards. Our experiments show that our approach outperforms both a classical approach to solving this task as well as a number of other baselines.

This month we tackle the topic of young people and what AI tools mean for their future. Joining the conversation this time are: Sanmay Das (Virginia Tech), Tom Dietterich (Oregon State University), Sabine Hauert (University of Bristol), Michael Littman (Brown University), and Ella Scallan (AIhub). As AI tools have become ubiquitous, we've seen growing concern and increasing coverage about how the use of such tools from a formative age might affect children. What do you think the impact will be and what skills might young people need to navigate this AI world? I met up with a bunch of high school friends when I was last in Switzerland and they were all wondering what their kids should study. They were wondering if they should do social science, seeing as AI tools have become adept at many tasks, such as coding, writing, art, etc. I think that we need social sciences, but that we also need people who know the technology and who can continue developing it. I say they should continue doing whatever they're interested in and those jobs will evolve and they'll look different, but there will still be a whole wealth of different types of jobs.

Can we utilize reinforcement learning to automatically form the abstractions needed for planning, thus obtaining the best of both approaches?

Thm. 3.2] we can construct an SCM

RCM. Finally, we illustrate the power of this conciliatory perspective by pinpointing