PreprintCited by 152Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchAdaptive Dynamic Programming Control

Safe Exploration in Markov Decision Processes

Open access
Moldovan, Teodor Mihai, Abbeel, Pieter·2012·arXiv

Abstract

In environments with uncertain dynamics exploration is necessary to learn how to perform well. Existing reinforcement learning algorithms provide strong exploration guarantees, but they tend to rely on an ergodicity assumption. The essence of ergodicity is that any state is eventually reachable from any other state by following a suitable policy. This assumption allows for exploration algorithms that operate by simply favoring states that have rarely been visited before. For most physical systems this assumption is impractical as the systems would break before any reasonable exploration has taken place, i.e., most physical systems don't satisfy the ergodicity assumption. In this paper we address the need for safe exploration methods in Markov decision processes. We first propose a general formulation of safety through ergodicity. We show that imposing safety by restricting attention to the resulting set of guaranteed safe policies is NP-hard. We then present an efficient algorithm for guaranteed safe, but potentially suboptimal, exploration. At the core is an optimization formulation in which the constraints restrict attention to a subset of the guaranteed safe policies and the objective favors exploration policies. Our framework is compatible with the majority of previously proposed exploration methods, which rely on an exploration bonus. Our experiments, which include a Martian terrain exploration problem, show that our method is able to explore better than classical exploration methods.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1205.4810

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Safe exploration can only be achieved through the incorporation of external knowledge.

    “An exploration process is called safe if no undesirable states are ever visited, which can only be achieved through the incorporation of external knowledge (García and Fernández 2015;Moldovan and Abbeel 2012).”

    From Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding (2018) · cites this paper as Moldovan and Abbeel 2012

    The Safety Constraint section (p. 3) defines safety as preserving ergodicity with a user-specified probability, not as never visiting an undesirable state. The Safety Counter-Examples section (p. 3) explicitly argues against defining safety by safe and unsafe states. The paper uses a prior belief and information learned during exploration, but does not say that incorporating external knowledge is the only way to achieve safety. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Aswani, Anil and Bouffard, Patrick. Extensions of Learning-Based Model Predictive Control for Real-Time Application to a Quadrotor Helicopter. In Proc. American Control Conference (ACC) (to appear) , 2012.
  2. Blondel, Vincent D. and Tsitsiklis, John N. A survey of computational complexity results in systems and control. Automatica , 36(9):1249-1274, September 2000.
  3. Brafman, Ronen I. and Tennenholtz, Moshe. R-MAX - A General Polynomial Time Algorithm for Near-Optimal Reinforcement Learning. In Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume 3, pp. 213-231, 2001.
  4. Delage, Erick and Mannor, Shie. Percentile optimization in uncertain Markov decision processes with application to efficient exploration. ICML; Vol. 227 , pp. 225, 2007.
  5. Geramifard, A, Redding, J, Roy, N, and How, J P. UAV Cooperative Control with Stochastic Risk Models. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC) , San Francisco, CA, 2011.
  6. Gillula, Jeremy H. and Tomlin, Claire J. Guaranteed safe online learning of a bounded system. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 2979-2984. IEEE, September 2011.
  7. Hans, A, Schneegaß, D, Sch¨ afer, AM, and Udluft, S. Safe exploration for reinforcement learning. In ESANN 2008, 16th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks , 2008.
  8. Kearns, Michael and Singh, Satinder. Near-Optimal Reinforcement Learning in Polynomial Time. Machine Learning , 49(2):209-232, November 2002.
  9. Kolter, J. Zico and Ng, Andrew Y. Near-Bayesian exploration in polynomial time. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning - ICML '09 , pp. 1-8, New York, New York, USA, 2009. ACM Press.
  10. Li, Lihong, Littman, Michael L., and Walsh, Thomas J. Knows what it knows: a framework for self-aware learning. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning , pp. 568-575, 2008.
  11. Lockwood, Mary Kae. Introduction: Mars Science Laboratory: The Next Generation of Mars Landers. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets , 43(2), 2006.
  12. Nilim, Arnab and El Ghaoui, Laurent. Robust Control of Markov Decision Processes with Uncertain Transition Matrices. Operations Research , 53(5):780-798, 2005.
  13. Strehl, Alexander L. and Littman, Michael L. A theoretical analysis of Model-Based Interval Estimation. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05 , pp. 856-863, New York, New York, USA, August 2005. ACM Press.
  14. Sutton, Richard S. and Barto, Andrew G. Reinforcement learning: an introduction . MIT Press, 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moldovan, T. M., & Abbeel, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2012
Pages
1451-1458
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151237105
Cited by
152
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Machine Learning
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0931463)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF, W911NF-11, W911NF-11-1-0391)
  • Army Research Laboratory (W911NF1110391, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Adaptive Dynamic Programming Control
Keywords
safe exploration, Markov decision process, exploration bonus, NP-hardness, constrained optimization, 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