CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 413Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsMachine Learning and AlgorithmsAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Hadfield-Menell, Dylan, Dragan, Anca, Abbeel, Pieter, Russell, Stuart·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1606.03137arXiv 1606.03137
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

For an autonomous system to be helpful to humans and to pose no unwarranted risks, it needs to align its values with those of the humans in its environment in such a way that its actions contribute to the maximization of value for the humans. We propose a formal definition of the value alignment problem as cooperative inverse reinforcement learning (CIRL). A CIRL problem is a cooperative, partial-information game with two agents, human and robot; both are rewarded according to the human's reward function, but the robot does not initially know what this is. In contrast to classical IRL, where the human is assumed to act optimally in isolation, optimal CIRL solutions produce behaviors such as active teaching, active learning, and communicative actions that are more effective in achieving value alignment. We show that computing optimal joint policies in CIRL games can be reduced to solving a POMDP, prove that optimality in isolation is suboptimal in CIRL, and derive an approximate CIRL algorithm.

Overview

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.1606.03137

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence . Pearson, 2010.
  2. Waugh, K, Ziebart, B, and Bagnell, J. Computational rationalization: The inverse equilibrium problem. In ICML , 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 413

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hadfield-Menell, D., Dragan, A., Abbeel, P., & Russell, S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
Volume
29
Pages
3909-3917
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1606.03137
arXiv
1606.03137
OpenAlex
W2410842990
Cited by
413
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
value alignment, human-robot interaction, partially observable Markov decision processes, active teaching methods, active learning (machine learning), communicative action, robot learning from humans, reward function 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