A Survey of Maximum Entropy-Based Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Methods and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, inverse reinforcement learning algorithms have garnered substantial attention and demonstrated remarkable success across various control domains, including autonomous driving, intelligent gaming, robotic manipulation, and automated industrial systems. Nevertheless, existing methodologies face two persistent challenges: (1) finite or non-optimal expert demonstration and (2) ambiguity in which different reward functions lead to same expert strategies. To improve and enhance the expert demonstration data and to eliminate the ambiguity caused by the symmetry of rewards, there has been a growing interest in research on developing inverse reinforcement learning based on the maximum entropy method. The unique advantage of these algorithms lies in learning rewards from expert presentations by maximizing policy entropy, matching expert expectations, and then optimizing the policy. This paper first provides a comprehensive review of the historical development of maximum entropy-based inverse reinforcement learning (ME-IRL) methodologies. Subsequently, it systematically presents the benchmark experiments and recent application breakthroughs achieved through ME-IRL. The concluding section analyzes the persistent technical challenges, proposes promising solutions, and outlines the emerging research frontiers in this rapidly evolving field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".