Cited by 30Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Learning Robust Options

Open access
Mankowitz, Daniel, Mann, Timothy, Bacon, Pierre-Luc, Precup, Doina, Mannor, Shie·2018·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Robust reinforcement learning aims to produce policies that have strong guarantees even in the face of environments/transition models whose parameters have strong uncertainty. Existing work uses value-based methods and the usual primitive action setting. In this paper, we propose robust methods for learning temporally abstract actions, in the framework of options. We present a Robust Options Policy Iteration (ROPI) algorithm with convergence guarantees, which learns options that are robust to model uncertainty. We utilize ROPI to learn robust options with the Robust Options Deep Q Network (RO-DQN) that solves multiple tasks and mitigates model misspecification due to model uncertainty. We present experimental results which suggest that policy iteration with linear features may have an inherent form of robustness when using coarse feature representations. In addition, we present experimental results which demonstrate that robustness helps policy iteration implemented on top of deep neural networks to generalize over a much broader range of dynamics than non-robust policy iteration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v32i1.12115

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Robust RL methods that optimize a pessimistic objective tend to yield controllers that are overly conservative, generalizing well at the cost of losing optimality even on IID data.

    “These optimization procedures tend to yield controllers that are overly conservative, as they generalize quite well at the cost of losing optimality even on IID data.”

    From Improving Controller Generalization with Dimensionless Markov Decision Processes (2025) · cites this paper as Mankowitz et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mankowitz, D., Mann, T., Bacon, P.-L., Precup, D., & Mannor, S.
Affiliations
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2018-04-26
Volume
32
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2785529341
Cited by
30
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (306638)
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 › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
robust reinforcement learning, options framework, model uncertainty, policy iteration, deep Q-network, convergence guarantees, model misspecification

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