analiza aiqbench
This research formalizes the theoretical value of hybrid mechanistic models in sequential decision-making by introducing a metric for "mechanistic information" to quantify sample complexity reductions. The study demonstrates significant improvements in Bayesian regret over uninformed baselines using a chemotherapy dosing simulation, while also highlighting the risks posed by distribution shifts to physically grounded priors. This work advances the intersection of physical modeling and reinforcement learning, offering rigorous bounds for safety-critical AI applications where data efficiency is paramount.
The Value of Mechanistic Priors in Sequential Decision Making
arXiv:2605.10018v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Hybrid mechanistic models, physical priors with learned residuals, promise to reduce the data required for good decisions, but have no computable criterion to test this. We characterize the value of mechanistic priors in sequential decision-making within both asymptotic and burn-in regimes. To formalize this, we introduce the mechanistic information of a model: the mutual information between the model's recommended policy $\hat{\pi}$ and the true optimal policy $\pi^*$, bounded via a centered, occupancy-weighted bias. In the asymptotic regime (large $N$), matched bounds reveal that Bayesian regret scales with the residual entropy $H_{\mathrm{mech}}$, delivering a theoretical sample complexity reduction of $H(\mu)/H_{\mathrm{mech}}$ compared to an uninformed baseline. We further provide a computable pre-trial model certificate. Complementarily, in the clinically relevant burn-in regime (small $N$), we establish a lower bound on the penalty incurred by confidently wrong priors. We demonstrate both the asymptotic and burn-in bounds on an illustrative in-silico 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy plant whose structure follows published FOLFOX pharmacokinetics. The hybrid prior reduces cumulative regret by $1.79\times$ relative to standard body-surface-area dosing and $1.85\times$ relative to an uninformed learner, and remains below both under every calibration bias tested. Finally, we show that priors sensitive to distribution shift can lose half of their mechanistic information under a small distribution shift, motivating physically grounded priors for safety-critical applications.
Abstract:Hybrid mechanistic models, physical priors with learned residuals, promise to reduce the data required for good decisions, but have no computable criterion to test this. We characterize the value of mechanistic priors in sequential decision-making within both asymptotic and burn-in regimes. To formalize this, we introduce the mechanistic information of a model: the mutual information between the model's recommended policy $\hat{\pi}$ and the true optimal policy $\pi^*$, bounded via a centered, occupancy-weighted bias. In the asymptotic regime (large $N$), matched bounds reveal that Bayesian regret scales with the residual entropy $H_{\mathrm{mech}}$, delivering a theoretical sample complexity reduction of $H(\mu)/H_{\mathrm{mech}}$ compared to an uninformed baseline. We further provide a computable pre-trial model certificate. Complementarily, in the clinically relevant burn-in regime (small $N$), we establish a lower bound on the penalty incurred by confidently wrong priors. We demonstrate both the asymptotic and burn-in bounds on an illustrative in-silico 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy plant whose structure follows published FOLFOX pharmacokinetics. The hybrid prior reduces cumulative regret by $1.79\times$ relative to standard body-surface-area dosing and $1.85\times$ relative to an uninformed learner, and remains below both under every calibration bias tested. Finally, we show that priors sensitive to distribution shift can lose half of their mechanistic information under a small distribution shift, motivating physically grounded priors for safety-critical applications.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.10018 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.10018v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.10018 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 305 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Taboo “equilibrium”: Less confused frames for research on AI bargaining
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026
Reinforcement Learning: From Algorithms To Foundation Models
arXiv · 21 iul. 2026

"I am an AI Safety Researcher"
LessWrong · 23 sept. 2026
Towards More Efficient, Robust, Instance-adaptive, and Generalizable Sequential Decision making
arXiv · 1 oct. 2026