TAMER: Training an Agent Manually via Evaluative Reinforcement
Abstract
Though computers have surpassed humans at many tasks, especially computationally intensive ones, there are many tasks for which human expertise remains necessary and/or useful. For such tasks, it is desirable for a human to be able to transmit knowledge to a learning agent as quickly and effortlessly as possible, and, ideally, without any knowledge of the details of the agent’s learning process. This paper proposes a general framework called Training an Agent Manually via Evaluative Reinforcement (TAMER) that allows a human to train a learning agent to perform a common class of complex tasks simply by giving scalar reward signals in response to the agent’s observed actions. Specifically, in sequential decision making tasks, an agent models the human’s reward function and chooses actions that it predicts will receive the most reward. Our novel algorithm is fully implemented and tested on the game Tetris. Leveraging the human trainers’ feedback, the agent learns to clear an average of more than 50 lines by its third game, an order of magnitude faster than the best autonomous learning agents.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The addition of the KL penalty has been shown to be similar to performing Bayesian inference on the model.
“Theoretically, the addition of this KL penalty has been shown to be similar to performing Bayesian inference [83] on the model.”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [83]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unity: A General Platform for Intelligent Agents
Juliani, A., Berges, V.-P., Teng, E., Cohen, A., Harper, J., Elion, C., Goy, C., Gao, Y., Henry, H., Mattar, M., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.02627 · Cited by 626 · see citing works
“…frameworks have been studied in the literature (Zhang et al., 2019) such as learning to imitate expert trajectories (Ho and Ermon, 2016), humans providing evaluative feedback to the agent (Knox and Stone, 2008), or humans manipulating the agent’s observed states and actions (Abel et al., 2016).”
BackgroundLiesenfeld, A., Lopez, A., & Dingemanse, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3571884.3604316 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Chaudhari, S., Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., Deshpande, A., & Castro da Silva, B. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3743127 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
“The model outputs, along with the inputs, are passed to the RM that generates a scalar output indicating the reward for this input-output pair.”
Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
“Attempting to discretize this form of feedback using a Likert scale (a range of discrete ratings; e.g., very bad, bad, ok, good, very good) simplifies the process of feedback collection [Knox and Stone, 2008, MacGlashan et al., 2017, Arumugam et al., 2019].”
MethodHuman-in-the-loop reinforcement learning in continuous-action space
Luo, B., Wu, Z., Zhou, F., & Wang, B.-C. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2023.3289315 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
When to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted Programming
Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Fourney, A., & Horvitz, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.04930 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Integrating human preferences when training machine learning models has long been studied in the literature (Knox and Stone 2008; MacGlashan et al. 2017).”
BackgroundWhen to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted Programming
Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Fourney, A., & Horvitz, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i9.28878 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bradley Knox, W., & Stone, P.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Venue
- 2008 7th IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2008-08
- Pages
- 292-297
- OpenAlex
- W2110064869
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0237699, CAREER)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Keywords
- human-in-the-loop learning, reward modeling, sequential decision making, Tetris, human feedback, reward function learning, game-playing agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review