Cited by 41Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning in continuous-action space

Luo, Biao, Wu, Zhengke, Zhou, Fei, Wang, Bing-Chuan·2024·IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

Abstract

Human-in-the-loop for reinforcement learning (RL) is usually employed to overcome the challenge of sample inefficiency, in which the human expert provides advice for the agent when necessary. The current human-in-the-loop RL (HRL) results mainly focus on discrete action space. In this article, we propose a Q value-dependent policy (QDP)-based HRL (QDP-HRL) algorithm for continuous action space. Considering the cognitive costs of human monitoring, the human expert only selectively gives advice in the early stage of agent learning, where the agent implements human-advised action instead. The QDP framework is adapted to the twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient algorithm (TD3) in this article for the convenience of comparison with the state-of-the-art TD3. Specifically, the human expert in the QDP-HRL considers giving advice in the case that the difference between the twin Q -networks' output exceeds the maximum difference in the current queue. Moreover, to guide the update of the critic network, the advantage loss function is developed using expert experience and agent policy, which provides the learning direction for the QDP-HRL algorithm to some extent. To verify the effectiveness of QDP-HRL, the experiments are conducted on several continuous action space tasks in the OpenAI gym environment, and the results demonstrate that QDP-HRL greatly improves learning speed and performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnnls.2023.3289315

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Ethical considerations and legal compliance have become increasingly crucial as AI technologies evolve and integrate into sectors, requiring focus on developing 'Ethical AI Frameworks'.

    “As AI technologies rapidly evolve and become more integrated into various sectors, ethical considerations and legal compliance have become increasingly crucial, which requires a focus on developing 'Ethical AI Frameworks', a new category in our taxonomy reflecting the trend towards responsible AI development in generative AI [214], [215], [15], [216], [217].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, B., Wu, Z., Zhou, F., & Wang, B.-C.
Affiliations
Central South University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
Published
2024-11
Volume
35
Issue
11
Pages
15735-15744
ISSN
  • 2162-237X (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-2388
OpenAlex
W4383503699
Cited by
41
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62022094, 61873350)
  • Zhejiang Laboratory (2021NB0AB01)
  • Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2020JJ2049)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Adaptive Dynamic Programming Control
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning, continuous action spaces, TD3, sample inefficiency

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