Reinforcement Learning with Perturbed Rewards
Open accessAbstract
Recent studies have shown that reinforcement learning (RL) models are vulnerable in various noisy scenarios. For instance, the observed reward channel is often subject to noise in practice (e.g., when rewards are collected through sensors), and is therefore not credible. In addition, for applications such as robotics, a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm can be manipulated to produce arbitrary errors by receiving corrupted rewards. In this paper, we consider noisy RL problems with perturbed rewards, which can be approximated with a confusion matrix. We develop a robust RL framework that enables agents to learn in noisy environments where only perturbed rewards are observed. Our solution framework builds on existing RL/DRL algorithms and firstly addresses the biased noisy reward setting without any assumptions on the true distribution (e.g., zero-mean Gaussian noise as made in previous works). The core ideas of our solution include estimating a reward confusion matrix and defining a set of unbiased surrogate rewards. We prove the convergence and sample complexity of our approach. Extensive experiments on different DRL platforms show that trained policies based on our estimated surrogate reward can achieve higher expected rewards, and converge faster than existing baselines. For instance, the state-of-the-art PPO algorithm is able to obtain 84.6% and 80.8% improvements on average score for five Atari games, with error rates as 10% and 30% respectively.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
More accurate reward models are not necessarily better teachers.
“more accurate reward models are not necessarily better teachers (Wang et al., 2020).”
From TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms
Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.06347 · Cited by 10,625 · see citing works
Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-Learning
Van Hasselt, H., Guez, A., & Silver, D. (2016) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10295 · Cited by 3,318 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sim-to-Real Transfer in Deep Reinforcement Learning for Robotics: a Survey
Zhao, W., Queralta, J. P., & Westerlund, T. (2020) · 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci47803.2020.9308468 · Cited by 941 · see citing works
Wild Patterns Reloaded: A Survey of Machine Learning Security against Training Data Poisoning
Cinà, A. E., Grosse, K., Demontis, A., Vascon, S., Zellinger, W., Moser, B. A., Oprea, A., Biggio, B., Pelillo, M., & Roli, F. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3585385 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Zhao, W., Queralta, J. P., Qingqing, L., & Westerlund, T. (2020) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.10.043 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning
Zuo, Y., Zhang, K., Sheng, L., Qu, S., Cui, G., Zhu, X., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Long, X., Hua, E., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“(ii) Prior work has also examined what constitutes a good reward model from an optimization perspective, revealing that more accurate reward models are not necessarily better teachers [45].”
- Authors
- Wang, J., Liu, Y., & Li, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- ORCID
- Li, Bo
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2020-04-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 6202-6209
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W2998116579
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.aaai.org/ (unspecified)
- 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
- National Science Foundation (1910100)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- reinforcement learning, robust reinforcement learning, reward estimation, sample complexity, convergence analysis, deep reinforcement learning
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