Skip to content

Optimism Needs a Way Back: What Value an Agent Should Give a State It Did Not Know Existed, Why Every Located Guarantee Borrows Its Answer From a Reset, a Data Horizon or a Reference, and What That Leaves for Unknown Unknowns

Oct 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Reinforcement Learning in Robotics

Abstract

(c) 2026 Pranay Mahendrakar. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Life of Research A learning agent that reaches a state outside everything it has represented must give that state a value before it can act again, and the reinforcement learning literature offers three answers. Optimism values the unknown high so that the agent goes to look; pessimism values it low so that the agent stays where its knowledge holds; a 2025 proposal for agents with growing awareness values it at the average of what the agent already knows, on the grounds that nothing is known about it. In this analysis the author reviews and synthesises published results to show that none of the three rules is justified by the agent's ignorance, and that each located guarantee borrows its justification from something outside the rule. The located efficiency results for optimism assume the agent can always get back, through episodic resets or a communicating environment; where some states cannot be reached, optimistic algorithms incur linear regret, and where some states cannot be left, a 2020 result shows that any agent guaranteed to be asymptotically optimal is, under a stated condition on the environment, destroyed or incapacitated with probability one. Pessimism's minimax guarantees assume data collection has ended; when learning resumes, a value floor set too low makes a pessimistic agent discard a good initial policy, and on one benchmark suite a calibrated floor cut average cumulative regret from 0.41 to 0.22. The averaging rule's regret bound holds under an explicit assumption that unknown states are worth no more than the known average, plus resets. The paper consolidates these results in two tables and a figure, states the choice as a decision procedure whose first step is detecting that a state is new at all, and names the comparisons that would settle what an agent without resets, mentor or ceiling should assume.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54
#machine learning Review Open access Jun 2014

Why Early-Stage Software Startups Fail: A Behavioral Framework

This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.

Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson · 175 citations · ⚡19
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#machine learning Review Open access May 2016

Key Challenges in Software Startups Across Life Cycle Stages

It is found that what perceived as biggest challenges by software startups do vary across different life cycle stages, even though its significance decreases when the learning focuses of the startups move from problem to solution and their products mature.

Xiaofeng Wang, Henry Edison, Sohaib Shahid Bajwa et al. · 62 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.