cs.LGAug 11, 2026

Let it Cook: Learning to Wait in Sequential Decision Making

Authors: Christopher Watson, Arjun Krishna, Dinesh Jayaraman, Rajeev Alur

Abstract

In sequential decision making, an agent typically observes its environment and acts at every timestep. However, such active participation may not always be necessary; tasks such as brewing coffee include periods that are served equally well by letting the environment evolve without constant monitoring and control. During such periods, the agent could simply wait to conserve its resources, or redirect its attention to another task. We capitalize on these opportunities by training a "waiting policy" that decides where and how long to wait. This involves forgoing sensing to commit to a wait action, representing a deliberate pause for a set number of timesteps. We formalize "learning to wait" as minimizing the frequency of sensing and decision making without sacrificing task performance (e.g., the total amount of time to complete a task). To train a waiting policy, we propose an approach that employs reinforcement learning with lexicographically ordered objectives. In experiments across 4 discrete-state household tasks and 3 continuous-state environments, we show that our approach successfully learns waiting behaviors, and can adapt pre-trained policies to wait where appropriate. While different tasks permit different amounts of waiting without sacrificing task performance, our approach consistently finds solutions with significant waiting, sometimes waiting for over 50 percent of the task duration.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 24, 2026cs.LG

Finding the Time to Think: Learning Planning Budgets in Real-Time RL

Deliberating takes time. In real-time settings, that time is not free. Standard reinforcement learning (RL) sidesteps this as the environment waits indefinitely for the agent's decision. Instead, we study real-time RL environments where the environment progresses while waiting for the agent's action. Building on prior real-time formalizations, we introduce variable-delay real-time RL, where the agent chooses how long to deliberate at each decision point since the environment progresses. For the planning agents we use, the right delay is state-dependent, and naively planning how long to plan can paralyze the agent. We instead approach this setting by training a lightweight gating policy on top of a planner to select state-dependent planning budgets. Across real-time Pac-Man, Tetris, Snake, Speed Hex, and Speed Go, our gating policy outperforms fixed-budget and heuristic baselines, and transfers to a real-time setup where the environment and agent run on two different GPUs.
Aneesh Muppidi, Firas Darwish, Dylan Cope +2
Dynamic ReplanningReal-Time SystemsDelayPlanning MethodsDeliberation
AskPDF
Jul 17, 2026cs.AI

When to Plan: Learning to Select Between Reactive Control and Deliberative Planning

It has long been recognized that humans have the ability to switch between fast, reactive decision-making and slower, deliberative planning. In this paper, we study the question of how to learn this ability, known as meta-reasoning, in artificial agents. We model reactive decision-making as a policy that directly maps state observations to actions. Such policies can be trained with reinforcement learning (RL) or imitation learning, but may generalize poorly outside of their training distribution. Alternatively, model-based decision-time planning is more likely to produce good actions across a broader set of states but requires additional computation time, which delays acting. In this work, we introduce an RL method for training a meta-reasoning policy that allocates computation by conditioning on a reactive-policy uncertainty score. This score enables it to predict when the reactive policy is likely to perform poorly and when planning is needed. We conduct an empirical study on motion planning and navigation environments, showing that this design enables the meta-reasoning policy to learn when the reactive policy provides a good-enough action versus when decision-time planning is needed. Additionally, we show that our design enables the meta-agent to shift toward fully reactive control as the reactive policy improves.
Adam Labiosa, Josiah P. Hanna
Classical PlanningReactivePlanning MethodsDecisionsDeliberationArtificial Intelligence Agents
AskPDF
Jul 9, 2026cs.AI

Remember When It Matters: Proactive Memory Agent for Long-Horizon Agents

In long-horizon tasks, decision-relevant state is often scattered across an expanding trajectory, while the action agent must surface it and act. As trajectories grow, task requirements, environment facts, prior attempts, diagnoses, and open subgoals can be buried in the context window or pushed beyond it, failing to influence decisions when needed. We call this failure mode "behavioral state decay". We study memory as an active intervention mechanism rather than passive retrieval. A separate memory agent runs alongside an unmodified action agent, updating a structured memory bank from the recent trajectory and deciding whether to inject a memory-grounded reminder or remain silent. The module is plug-and-play with frontier action agents and existing agent harnesses. Across Terminal-Bench 2.0 and τ2τ^2-Bench, it improves pass@1 for both weaker and stronger action agents, with gains of +8.3 pp on Terminal-Bench and +6.8 pp on τ2τ^2-Bench. Ablations show that selective intervention outperforms passive bank exposure, always-on injection, advisor-only guidance, and general retrieval. As an early step toward open-weight memory policies, we train Qwen3.5-27B on SETA using SFT and GRPO, improving validation reward and achieving partial transfer to Terminal-Bench.
Yifan Wu, Lizhu Zhang, Yuhang Zhou +5
Long-Horizon AgentsAgent MemoryLong-Horizon TasksLong-HorizonStrategic Agents
AskPDF