Risk-Aware Transfer in Reinforcement Learning using Successor Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample efficiency and risk-awareness are central to the development of practical reinforcement learning (RL) for complex decision-making. The former can be addressed by transfer learning and the latter by optimizing some utility function of the return. However, the problem of transferring skills in a risk-aware manner is not well-understood. In this paper, we address the problem of risk-aware policy transfer between tasks in a common domain that differ only in their reward functions, in which risk is measured by the variance of reward streams. Our approach begins by extending the idea of generalized policy improvement to maximize entropic utilities, thus extending policy improvement via dynamic programming to sets of policies and levels of risk-aversion. Next, we extend the idea of successor features (SF), a value function representation that decouples the environment dynamics from the rewards, to capture the variance of returns. Our resulting risk-aware successor features (RaSF) integrate seamlessly within the RL framework, inherit the superior task generalization ability of SFs, and incorporate risk-awareness into the decision-making. Experiments on a discrete navigation domain and control of a simulated robotic arm demonstrate the ability of RaSFs to outperform alternative methods including SFs, when taking the risk of the learned policies into account.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".