Dynamics-Aware Comparison of Learned Reward Functions
Blake Wulfe, Logan Michael Ellis, Jean Mercat, Rowan Thomas McAllister, Adrien Gaidon
Abstract
The ability to learn reward functions plays an important role in enabling the deployment of intelligent agents in the real world. However, comparing reward functions, for example as a means of evaluating reward learning methods, presents a challenge. Reward functions are typically compared by considering the behavior of optimized policies, but this approach conflates deficiencies in the reward function with those of the policy search algorithm used to optimize it. To address this challenge, Gleave et al. (2020) propose the Equivalent-Policy Invariant Comparison (EPIC) distance. EPIC avoids policy optimization, but in doing so requires computing reward values at transitions that may be impossible under the system dynamics. This is problematic for learned reward functions because it entails evaluating them outside of their training distribution, resulting in inaccurate reward values that we show can render EPIC ineffective at comparing rewards. To address this problem, we propose the Dynamics-Aware Reward Distance (DARD), a new reward pseudometric. DARD uses an approximate transition model of the environment to transform reward functions into a form that allows for comparisons that are invariant to reward shaping while only evaluating reward functions on transitions close to their training distribution. Experiments in simulated physical domains demonstrate that DARD enables reliable reward comparisons without policy optimization and is significantly more predictive than baseline methods of downstream policy performance when dealing with learned reward functions. †
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.
Cited by top-tier papers8
- STARC: A General Framework For Quantifying Differences Between Reward FunctionsJoar Max Viktor Skalse, Lucy Farnik, Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Erik Jenner et al.ICLR 2024 · 14 citations
- Bootstrapped Reward ShapingJacob Adamczyk, Volodymyr Makarenko, Stas Tiomkin, Rahul V. KulkarniAAAI 2025 · 7 citations
- Quantifying the Sensitivity of Inverse Reinforcement Learning to MisspecificationJoar Max Viktor Skalse, Alessandro AbateICLR 2024 · 5 citations
- Causal Confusion and Reward Misidentification in Preference-Based Reward LearningJeremy Tien, Jerry Zhi-Yang He, Zackory Erickson, Anca D. Dragan et al.ICLR 2023 · 3 citations
- Alleviating Shifted Distribution in Human Preference Alignment through Meta-LearningShihan Dou, Yan Liu, Enyu Zhou, Songyang Gao et al.AAAI 2025 · 2 citations
Builds on1
Related papers
- Episodic Novelty Through Temporal DistanceYuhua Jiang, Qihan Liu, Yiqin Yang, Xiaoteng Ma et al.ICLR 2025
- Reward Model Evaluation via Automatically-Ranked Policy AlignmentAoran Wang, Lei Ou, Yang Yu, Zongzhang ZhangAAAI 2026
- Inverse Preference Learning: Preference-based RL without a Reward FunctionJoey Hejna, Dorsa SadighNeurIPS 2023 · 92 citations
- Off-Dynamics Reinforcement Learning: Training for Transfer with Domain ClassifiersBenjamin Eysenbach, Shreyas Chaudhari, Swapnil Asawa, Sergey Levine et al.ICLR 2021 · 120 citations
- Fast Adaptation to New Environments via Policy-Dynamics Value FunctionsRoberta Raileanu, Maxwell Goldstein, Arthur Szlam, Rob FergusICML 2020 · 27 citations
