Policy invariant explicit shaping: an efficient alternative to reward shaping

7Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a powerful learning paradigm in which agents can learn to maximize sparse and delayed reward signals. Although RL has had many impressive successes in complex domains, learning can take hours, days, or even years of training data. A major challenge of contemporary RL research is to discover how to learn with less data. Previous work has shown that domain information can be successfully used to shape the reward; by adding additional reward information, the agent can learn with much less data. Furthermore, if the reward is constructed from a potential function, the optimal policy is guaranteed to be unaltered. While such potential-based reward shaping (PBRS) holds promise, it is limited by the need for a well-defined potential function. Ideally, we would like to be able to take arbitrary advice from a human or other agent and improve performance without affecting the optimal policy. The recently introduced dynamic potential-based advice (DPBA) was proposed to tackle this challenge by predicting the potential function values as part of the learning process. However, this article demonstrates theoretically and empirically that, while DPBA can facilitate learning with good advice, it does in fact alter the optimal policy. We further show that when adding the correction term to “fix” DPBA it no longer shows effective shaping with good advice. We then present a simple method called policy invariant explicit shaping (PIES) and show theoretically and empirically that PIES can use arbitrary advice, speed-up learning, and leave the optimal policy unchanged.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Behboudian, P., Satsangi, Y., Taylor, M. E., Harutyunyan, A., & Bowling, M. (2022). Policy invariant explicit shaping: an efficient alternative to reward shaping. Neural Computing and Applications, 34(3), 1673–1686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06259-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free