Sequential Decision Making

Many sequential decision-making problems exhibit hierarchical structure, where high-level semantic choices constrain downstream actions and feedback is delayed and ambiguous. Learning in such settings is challenging due to credit assignment: performance degradation may arise from flawed abstractions, suboptimal execution, or their interaction. We study this challenge through pair trading, a domain that naturally combines long-horizon semantic reasoning for asset pair selection with short-horizon execution under partial observability. We formulate pair trading as a hierarchical reinforcement learning problem and propose a language-driven optimization framework in which both high-level and low-level policies are parameterized by large language models (LLMs) and optimized exclusively through prompt updates. Our approach leverages pretrained LLMs as hierarchical policies and uses trajectory- and episode-level textual feedback to adapt abstractions and execution without gradient-based fine-tuning. By explicitly separating abstraction selection from execution, the framework reduces non-stationarity across hierarchical levels and enables targeted adaptation under delayed feedback. Experiments on real-world market data show consistent improvements over traditional and LLM-based baselines, demonstrating the effectiveness of language-driven hierarchical reinforcement learning.

Language models are saturating benchmarks for procedural tasks with narrow objectives. But they are increasingly being deployed in long-horizon, non-stationary environments with open-ended goals. In this paper we introduce KellyBench, an environment for evaluating sequential decision-making in sports betting markets. Agents are placed in a sequential simulation of the 2023-24 English Premier League season and tasked with maximising their long-term bankroll growth. They are given detailed historical data, including advanced statistics, lineups, and public odds. To succeed they must build machine learning models, identify edge in public markets, and adapt as the environment changes over time. We find that all frontier models evaluated lose money on average over the course of the season for five seeds. The best performing model achieves an average return of -8%, and many models experiencing ruin across seeds. To judge strategy sophistication, we use a human expert rubric to grade each model and find their approaches to be unsophisticated compared to human baselines; Claude Opus 4.6 achieves a rubric score of 26.5%, which means there is significant room for improvement. KellyBench is available as an open-access API endpoint at https://openreward.ai/GeneralReasoning/KellyBench.

Treatment allocation under budget constraints is a central challenge in digital advertising: advertisers must decide which users to show ads to while spending a limited budget wisely. The standard approach follows a two-stage offline pipeline - first collect historical data to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE), then solve a constrained optimization to allocate the budget. This works well with abundant data, but fails in cold-start settings such as new campaigns, new markets, or new customer segments where little historical data exists. We propose Budget-Constrained Causal Bandits (BCCB), an online framework that learns which users respond to ads while simultaneously spending the budget, making treatment decisions one user at a time. BCCB unifies three components into a single sequential process: learning individual-level ad effectiveness, exploring users whose response is uncertain, and pacing the budget over time. We evaluated on the Criteo Uplift dataset, a large-scale advertising dataset from a real randomized controlled trial. Our key finding is a data-efficiency crossover: offline methods require approximately 10,000 historical observations to produce reliable results, while BCCB operates effectively from the very first user. Furthermore, BCCB exhibits 3-5x lower performance variance between runs, making it more practical for real campaign planning. Among purely online methods, BCCB consistently outperforms standard Thompson Sampling, budgeted Thompson Sampling, and greedy HTE estimation across all budget levels tested.

Political parties strive to understand their electorates, and focus groups are a vital tool in these efforts. AI-enhanced simulation technologies (AESTs) enable synthetic focus groups in a fraction of the time (and cost), raising the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research. This paper develops a decision matrix to help party strategists match research needs to appropriate simulation technologies and to identify when to escalate to hybrid or fully human focus groups. The matrix combines three dimensions: strategic purpose, deployment risk, and empirical grounding of the simulation tool. Strategic purpose is the decisive dimension, as it determines what kind of evidence the focus group is meant to produce: observing how political meanings and identities emerge through interaction (Mode 1) or testing and refining campaign messages (Mode 2). The matrix shows that, given documented failure modes such as sycophancy, persona drift, and the suppression of minority viewpoints, AESTs cannot replace human interaction in Mode 1 at any risk level. Within Mode 2, suitability depends instead on deployment risk and on the empirical grounding. Yet even here, we caution that routine reliance on AESTs may erode the qualitative craft on which sound judgment depends.

Fair machine learning (ML) methods help identify and mitigate the risk that algorithms encode or automate social injustices. Algorithmic approaches alone cannot resolve structural inequalities, but they can support socio-technical decision systems by surfacing discriminatory biases, clarifying trade-offs, and enabling governance. Although fairness is well studied in supervised learning, many real ML applications are online and sequential, with prior decisions informing future ones. Each decision is taken under uncertainty due to unobserved counterfactuals and finite samples, with dire consequences for under-represented groups, systematically under-observed due to historical exclusion and selective feedback. A bank cannot know whether a denied loan would have been repaid, and may have less data on marginalized populations. This paper introduces a taxonomy of uncertainty in sequential decision-making -- model, feedback, and prediction uncertainty -- providing shared vocabulary for assessing systems where uncertainty is unevenly distributed across groups. We formalize model and feedback uncertainty via counterfactual logic and reinforcement learning, and illustrate harms to decision makers (unrealized gains/losses) and subjects (compounding exclusion, reduced access) of policies that ignore the unobserved space. Algorithmic examples show it is possible to reduce outcome variance for disadvantaged groups while preserving institutional objectives (e.g. expected utility). Experiments on data simulated with varying bias show how unequal uncertainty and selective feedback produce disparities, and how uncertainty-aware exploration alters fairness metrics. The framework equips practitioners to diagnose, audit, and govern fairness risks. Where uncertainty drives unfairness rather than incidental noise, accounting for it is essential to fair and effective decision-making.

Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a fundamental sampling-based search algorithm widely used for online planning in sequential decision-making domains. Despite its success in driving recent advances in artificial intelligence, understanding the behavior of MCTS agents remains a challenge for both developers and users. This difficulty stems from the complex search trees produced through the simulation of numerous future states and their intricate relationships. A known weakness of standard MCTS is its reliance on highly selective tree construction, which may lead to the omission of crucial moves and a vulnerability to tactical traps. To resolve this, we incorporate shallow, full-width Minimax search into the rollout phase of multi-agent MCTS to enhance strategic depth. Furthermore, to demystify the resulting decision-making logic, we introduce \textsf{M2-PALE} (MCTS--Minimax Process-Aided Linguistic Explanations). This framework employs process mining techniques, specifically the Alpha Miner, iDHM, and Inductive Miner algorithms, to extract underlying behavioral workflows from agent execution traces. These process models are then synthesized by LLMs to generate human-readable causal and distal explanations. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in a small-scale checkers environment, establishing a scalable foundation for interpreting hybrid agents in increasingly complex strategic domains.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving increasingly beyond prediction to support decisions in complex, uncertain, and dynamic environments. This shift creates a natural intersection with operations research and management science (OR/MS), which has long provided methodological foundations for sequential decision making under uncertainty. At the same time, deep learning advances, including feedforward neural networks, recurrent architectures, transformers, large language models (LLMs), and deep reinforcement learning, have expanded data-driven modeling for large-scale decisions. This tutorial presents an OR/MS-centered perspective on deep learning for sequential decision making under uncertainty, bridging neural architectures and OR/MS approaches to decision making. Its premise: deep learning complements optimization rather than replacing it. Deep learning brings adaptability and scalable approximation, whereas OR/MS provides the mathematical rigor to represent constraints, recourse, uncertainty, and decision quality. The tutorial reviews key decision making foundations, connects them to the major neural architectures in modern AI, and organizes the field around three central themes: predict-then-optimize and decision-aware learning, learning-based decision generation under constraints for continuous and discrete problems with temporal coupling, and deep reinforcement learning for sequential and combinatorial decision making. Impact spans supply chains, service systems, healthcare and epidemic response, agriculture, energy, environmental sustainability, and autonomous operations. This tutorial frames these developments as part of a shift from predictive AI toward decision-capable AI, highlighting OR/MS's role in shaping the next generation of integrated learning--optimization systems.

This paper bridges some of the gap between optimal planning and reinforcement learning (RL), both of which share roots in dynamic programming applied to sequential decision making or optimal control. Whereas planning typically favors deterministic models, goal termination, and cost minimization, RL tends to favor stochastic models, infinite-horizon discounting, and reward maximization in addition to learning-related parameters such as the learning rate and greediness factor. A derandomized version of RL is developed, analyzed, and implemented to yield performance comparisons with value iteration and Dijkstra's algorithm using simple planning models. Next, mathematical analysis shows: 1) conditions under which cost minimization and reward maximization are equivalent, 2) conditions for equivalence of single-shot goal termination and infinite-horizon episodic learning, and 3) conditions under which discounting causes goal achievement to fail. The paper then advocates for defining and optimizing truecost, rather than inserting arbitrary parameters to guide operations. Performance studies are then extended to the stochastic case, using planning-oriented criteria and comparing value iteration to RL with learning rates and greediness factors.

Human-AI collaboration often requires dividing complex tasks into complementary subtasks. As a task unfolds, users may want to shift which subtasks they perform and which their AI partner performs, in response to evolving task demands and perceptions of the AI's capabilities. In this work, we investigate whether behavioral signals can reveal such changes during a sequential decision-making task. We conducted a study using hand-and-brain chess, where, on each turn, participants chose either to select the piece type (brain) while their AI partner chose the move (hand), or to choose the move after the AI selected the piece type. Across 21 chess players, this yielded more than 1,100 decisions to retain their role from the previous turn or switch to the other role. Players generally retained their current roles across turns. When participants did switch, they exhibited more exploratory gaze patterns and role switches were associated with lower subsequent move quality. Using these behavioral and task-specific signals, we trained a classifier to distinguish switch from stay decisions, achieving a PR-AUC of 0.56 (compared to a random baseline of 0.39). Feature-set ablations showed that gaze and task-specific features contributed most to model performance. Role switching was not a simple choice between controlling and delegating the task as both roles required participants to perform one subtask and delegate the other. However, interviews showed that many participants perceived selecting the piece type as giving them greater control. Perceived AI ability, relative subtask difficulty, and desired influence over the direction of play shaped these role preferences. These findings suggest that behavioral cues could help intelligent systems recognize when users want to reallocate complementary responsibilities during collaboration.

Agricultural decision-making faces a dual challenge: sustaining high yields to meet global food security needs while reducing the environmental impacts of input use, including fertilizer losses and other agrochemical applications such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. Nitrogen inputs are central to this tension. They are indispensable for crop growth yet major drivers of greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient runoff, and escalating production costs. Addressing these intertwined pressures requires adaptive decision-support tools that are statistically principled, economically sustainable and interpretable for practitioners. We develop nonlinear model-based bandit algorithms as a framework for adaptive fertilizer management under uncertainty. Building on classical mechanistic yield-response models, our approach links algorithmic exploration-exploitation strategies directly to interpretable biological processes such as maximum yield and nutrient efficiency. This grounding makes recommendations transparent for practitioners while supporting cost-effective and sustainable input use. Methodologically, we establish regret and sample complexity results for the well-specified nonlinear case, examine robustness under misspecification, and evaluate the proposed methods through profit-oriented simulations and an offline replay case study on publicly available multi-site corn nitrogen field trials from the U.S. Midwest. The results show that incorporating biologically meaningful mechanistic structure enables faster learning and higher profit as evidence accumulates, with flexible nonparametric baselines providing a competitive alternative in pooled and heterogeneous settings. Our findings illustrate how interpretable, uncertainty-aware sequential decision rules can support economically sustainable fertilizer recommendations and contribute to more efficient agricultural input use.

Target-conditioned sequence models provide a simple interface for controllable offline decision making, but the requested target return can be an unreliable control signal, especially when the target return lies in underrepresented regions of the dataset. This paper proposes Doctor, a hybrid sequence modeling and reinforced verification framework for controllable target-conditioned offline decision making. Doctor trains a shared masked trajectory Transformer with two complementary objectives: masked trajectory reconstruction for candidate generation and in-sample value learning for action-value verification. At inference time, the model samples multiple nearby target returns, generates candidate actions in parallel, and selects the action whose verified value is closest to the requested target return. We analyze this verifier-guided selection rule and show that its value-level alignment error is bounded by candidate-value coverage around the target return and verifier accuracy. Experiments on D4RL and EpiCare show that Doctor improves target-return alignment under reduced high-return coverage, remains competitive on standard offline return-maximization benchmarks, and enables a single policy to modulate between conservative and aggressive operating points in a simulated clinical decision-making task. These results suggest that reinforced verification can improve the controllability of target-conditioned policies.

When solving optimization problems under uncertainty with contextual data, utilizing machine learning to predict the uncertain parameters' values is a popular and effective approach. Decision-focused learning (DFL) aims at learning a predictive model such that decision quality, instead of prediction accuracy, is maximized. Common practice is to predict a single scenario representing the uncertain parameters, implicitly assuming that there exists a deterministic problem approximation (proxy) that allows for optimal decision-making. The opposite has also been considered, where the underlying distribution is estimated with a parameterized distribution. However, little is known about when either choice is valid. This paper investigates for the first time problem properties that justify using a certain decision proxy. Using this, we present alternative decision proxies for DFL, with little or no compromise on the complexity of the learning task. We show the effectiveness of presented approaches in experiments on continuous and discrete problems, as well as problems with uncertainty in the objective function and in the constraints.

Rested and Restless Bandits are two well-known bandit settings that are useful to model real-world sequential decision-making problems in which the expected reward of an arm evolves over time due to the actions we perform or due to the nature. In this work, we propose Graph-Triggered Bandits (GTBs), a unifying framework to generalize and extend rested and restless bandits. In this setting, the evolution of the arms' expected rewards is governed by a graph defined over the arms. An edge connecting a pair of arms $(i,j)$ represents the fact that a pull of arm $i$ triggers the evolution of arm $j$, and vice versa. Interestingly, rested and restless bandits are both special cases of our model for some suitable (degenerated) graph. As relevant case studies for this setting, we focus on two specific types of monotonic bandits: rising, where the expected reward of an arm grows as the number of triggers increases, and rotting, where the opposite behavior occurs. For these cases, we study the optimal policies. We provide suitable algorithms for all scenarios and discuss their theoretical guarantees, highlighting the complexity of the learning problem concerning instance-dependent terms that encode specific properties of the underlying graph structure.

Cellular automata is a local computation paradigm where complex behavior can arise from local interactions between simple functions. This paradigm has been used to explain many systems such as biological processes, traffic simulation, computer networks, etc. In games, cellular automata have been used in games such as SimCity and for the generation of spatial content such as caves or dungeons. However, creating effective local rules is hard and unintuitive. Cellular automata can be effectively evolved, but may still be hard to interpret. In this work, we introduce the concept of programmable cellular automata, where we represent the system as Python code. We also modularize the cellular automata into local functions and a decision function. Local functions take a local neighborhood and return a value, while the decision function takes the output of the local functions and decides the value of the next state. Separating the cellular automata into modules written in Python helps with understanding how these systems are working. We also explore adding global functions where they take the whole state and compute a function from it. We tested generating levels for three different games from the PCG Benchmark. The results showed that global functions decrease the number of iterations that cellular automata need to solve a problem, and that we cannot find solutions for some problems with purely local functions. Looking into the generated functions, we can see common functions that have been used in different experiments, which not only helps us understand the generator but also helps us understand these games better and what is important for them.