-
Utility-Based Reinforcement Learning: Unifying Single-objective and Multi-objective Reinforcement Learning
Authors:
Peter Vamplew,
Cameron Foale,
Conor F. Hayes,
Patrick Mannion,
Enda Howley,
Richard Dazeley,
Scott Johnson,
Johan Källström,
Gabriel Ramos,
Roxana Rădulescu,
Willem Röpke,
Diederik M. Roijers
Abstract:
Research in multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) has introduced the utility-based paradigm, which makes use of both environmental rewards and a function that defines the utility derived by the user from those rewards. In this paper we extend this paradigm to the context of single-objective reinforcement learning (RL), and outline multiple potential benefits including the ability to perfor…
▽ More
Research in multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) has introduced the utility-based paradigm, which makes use of both environmental rewards and a function that defines the utility derived by the user from those rewards. In this paper we extend this paradigm to the context of single-objective reinforcement learning (RL), and outline multiple potential benefits including the ability to perform multi-policy learning across tasks relating to uncertain objectives, risk-aware RL, discounting, and safe RL. We also examine the algorithmic implications of adopting a utility-based approach.
△ Less
Submitted 4 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Scalar reward is not enough: A response to Silver, Singh, Precup and Sutton (2021)
Authors:
Peter Vamplew,
Benjamin J. Smith,
Johan Kallstrom,
Gabriel Ramos,
Roxana Radulescu,
Diederik M. Roijers,
Conor F. Hayes,
Fredrik Heintz,
Patrick Mannion,
Pieter J. K. Libin,
Richard Dazeley,
Cameron Foale
Abstract:
The recent paper `"Reward is Enough" by Silver, Singh, Precup and Sutton posits that the concept of reward maximisation is sufficient to underpin all intelligence, both natural and artificial. We contest the underlying assumption of Silver et al. that such reward can be scalar-valued. In this paper we explain why scalar rewards are insufficient to account for some aspects of both biological and co…
▽ More
The recent paper `"Reward is Enough" by Silver, Singh, Precup and Sutton posits that the concept of reward maximisation is sufficient to underpin all intelligence, both natural and artificial. We contest the underlying assumption of Silver et al. that such reward can be scalar-valued. In this paper we explain why scalar rewards are insufficient to account for some aspects of both biological and computational intelligence, and argue in favour of explicitly multi-objective models of reward maximisation. Furthermore, we contend that even if scalar reward functions can trigger intelligent behaviour in specific cases, it is still undesirable to use this approach for the development of artificial general intelligence due to unacceptable risks of unsafe or unethical behaviour.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
A Practical Guide to Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning and Planning
Authors:
Conor F. Hayes,
Roxana Rădulescu,
Eugenio Bargiacchi,
Johan Källström,
Matthew Macfarlane,
Mathieu Reymond,
Timothy Verstraeten,
Luisa M. Zintgraf,
Richard Dazeley,
Fredrik Heintz,
Enda Howley,
Athirai A. Irissappane,
Patrick Mannion,
Ann Nowé,
Gabriel Ramos,
Marcello Restelli,
Peter Vamplew,
Diederik M. Roijers
Abstract:
Real-world decision-making tasks are generally complex, requiring trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting, objectives. Despite this, the majority of research in reinforcement learning and decision-theoretic planning either assumes only a single objective, or that multiple objectives can be adequately handled via a simple linear combination. Such approaches may oversimplify the underlying pr…
▽ More
Real-world decision-making tasks are generally complex, requiring trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting, objectives. Despite this, the majority of research in reinforcement learning and decision-theoretic planning either assumes only a single objective, or that multiple objectives can be adequately handled via a simple linear combination. Such approaches may oversimplify the underlying problem and hence produce suboptimal results. This paper serves as a guide to the application of multi-objective methods to difficult problems, and is aimed at researchers who are already familiar with single-objective reinforcement learning and planning methods who wish to adopt a multi-objective perspective on their research, as well as practitioners who encounter multi-objective decision problems in practice. It identifies the factors that may influence the nature of the desired solution, and illustrates by example how these influence the design of multi-objective decision-making systems for complex problems.
△ Less
Submitted 17 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
