On the Expressivity of Markov Reward
David Abel, Will Dabney, Anna Harutyunyan, Mark K. Ho, Michael L. Littman, Doina Precup, Satinder Singh
Abstract
Reward is the driving force for reinforcement-learning agents. This paper is dedicated to understanding the expressivity of reward as a way to capture tasks that we would want an agent to perform. We frame this study around three new abstract notions of "task" that might be desirable: (1) a set of acceptable behaviors, (2) a partial ordering over behaviors, or (3) a partial ordering over trajectories. Our main results prove that while reward can express many of these tasks, there exist instances of each task type that no Markov reward function can capture. We then provide a set of polynomial-time algorithms that construct a Markov reward function that allows an agent to optimize tasks of each of these three types, and correctly determine when no such reward function exists. We conclude with an empirical study that corroborates and illustrates our theoretical findings. Other Notions of Task. As a final note, we highlight alternative approaches to task specification. Building on the Free Energy Principle [13, 12] , Hafner et al. [17] consider a variety of task types in terms of minimization of distance to a desired target distribution [3] . Alternatively, Littman et al. [30] and Li et al. [28] propose variations of linear temporal logic (LTL) as a mechanism for specifying a task to RL agents, with related literature extending LTL to the multi-task [58] and multi-agent
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 215005dc-d96f-417f-951d-ea4bf8018b56Cited by top-tier papers39
- Motif: Intrinsic Motivation from Artificial Intelligence FeedbackMartin Klissarov, Pierluca D'Oro, Shagun Sodhani, Roberta Raileanu et al.ICLR 2024 · 97 citations
- Minimum Description Length ControlTed Moskovitz, Ta-Chu Kao, Maneesh Sahani, Matt M. BotvinickICLR 2023 · 76 citations
- Guarantees for Epsilon-Greedy Reinforcement Learning with Function ApproximationChristoph Dann, Yishay Mansour, Mehryar Mohri, Ayush Sekhari et al.ICML 2022 · 76 citations
- Settling the Reward HypothesisMichael Bowling, John D. Martin, David Abel, Will DabneyICML 2023 · 47 citations
- Direct Behavior Specification via Constrained Reinforcement LearningJulien Roy, Roger Girgis, Joshua Romoff, Pierre-Luc Bacon et al.ICML 2022 · 46 citations
Builds on4
- Reward-rational (implicit) choice: A unifying formalism for reward learningHong Jun Jeon, Smitha Milli, Anca D. DraganNeurIPS 2020 · 219 citations
- What Can Learned Intrinsic Rewards Capture?Zeyu Zheng, Junhyuk Oh, Matteo Hessel, Zhongwen Xu et al.ICML 2020 · 87 citations
- Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with Finite-Time GuaranteesYichong Xu, Ruosong Wang, Lin F. Yang, Aarti Singh et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 82 citations
- A Boolean Task Algebra for Reinforcement LearningGeraud Nangue Tasse, Steven James, Benjamin RosmanNeurIPS 2020 · 71 citations
Related papers
- On the Expressivity of Objective-Specification Formalisms in Reinforcement LearningRohan Subramani, Marcus Williams, Max Heitmann, Halfdan Holm et al.ICLR 2024 · 3 citations
- Instructing Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning Agents with Temporal Logic ObjectivesWenjie Qiu, Wensen Mao, He ZhuNeurIPS 2023 · 44 citations
- Do It for HER: First-Order Temporal Logic Reward Specification in Reinforcement LearningPierriccardo Olivieri, Fausto Lasca, Alessandro Gianola, Matteo PapiniAAAI 2026 · 2 citations
- Expressive Temporal Specifications for Reward MonitoringOmar Adalat, Francesco BelardinelliAAAI 2026
- Reward Design with Language ModelsMinae Kwon, Sang Michael Xie, Kalesha Bullard, Dorsa SadighICLR 2023 · 21 citations
