Human-in-the-Loop Reinforcement Learning: A Survey and Position on Requirements, Challenges, and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and especially reinforcement learning (RL) have the potential to enable agents to learn and perform tasks autonomously with superhuman performance. However, we consider RL as fundamentally a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) paradigm, even when an agent eventually performs its task autonomously. In cases where the reward function is challenging or impossible to define, HITL approaches are considered particularly advantageous. The application of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in systems such as ChatGPT demonstrates the effectiveness of optimizing for user experience and integrating their feedback into the training loop. In HITL RL, human input is integrated during the agent’s learning process, allowing iterative updates and fine-tuning based on human feedback, thus enhancing the agent’s performance. Since the human is an essential part of this process, we argue that human-centric approaches are the key to successful RL, a fact that has not been adequately considered in the existing literature. This paper aims to inform readers about current explainability methods in HITL RL. It also shows how the application of explainable AI (xAI) and specific improvements to existing explainability approaches can enable a better human-agent interaction in HITL RL for all types of users, whether for lay people, domain experts, or machine learning specialists. Accounting for the workflow in HITL RL and based on software and machine learning methodologies, this article identifies four phases for human involvement for creating HITL RL systems: (1) Agent Development, (2) Agent Learning, (3) Agent Evaluation, and (4) Agent Deployment. We highlight human involvement, explanation requirements, new challenges, and goals for each phase. We furthermore identify low-risk, high-return opportunities for explainability research in HITL RL and present long-term research goals to advance the field. Finally, we propose a vision of human-robot collaboration that allows both parties to reach their full potential and cooperate effectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it