Towards Anomaly Detection in Reinforcement Learning
Abstract
Identifying datapoints that substantially differ from normality is the task of anomaly detection (AD). While AD has gained widespread attention in rich data domains such as images, videos, audio and text, it has has been studied less frequently in the context of reinforcement learning (RL). This is due to the additional layer of complexity that RL introduces through sequential decision making. Developing suitable anomaly detectors for RL is of particular importance in safety-critical scenarios where acting on anomalous data could result in hazardous situations. In this work, we address the question of what AD means in the context of RL. We found that current research trains and evaluates on overly simplistic and unrealistic scenarios which reduce to classic pattern recognition tasks. We link AD in RL to various fields in RL such as lifelong RL and generalization. We discuss their similarities, differences, and how the fields can benefit from each other. Moreover, we identify non-stationarity to be one of the key drivers for future research on AD in RL and make a first step towards a more formal treatment of the problem by framing it in terms of the recently introduced block contextual Markov decision process. Finally, we define a list of practical desiderata for future problems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Traditional machine learning novelty detection methods are complicated to apply in an online RL setting.
“Many complications arise from applying traditional machine learning novelty detection methods to an online setting (Müller et al., 2022).”
From Novelty Detection in Reinforcement Learning with World Models (2023) · cites this paper as Müller et al., 2022
Generalization techniques like procedural generation and data augmentation suffer from high sample complexity.
“Generalization techniques exist, such as procedural generation to train agents to be more robust to novel situations (Cobbe et al., 2019) and data augmentation (Lee et al., 2019) to better train the agent, however these techniques suffer from high sample complexity (Müller et al., 2022).”
From Novelty Detection in Reinforcement Learning with World Models (2023) · cites this paper as Müller et al., 2022
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Novelty Detection in Reinforcement Learning with World Models
Zollicoffer, G., Eaton, K., Balloch, J., Kim, J., Zhou, W., Wright, R., & Riedl, M. O. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08731
- Authors
- Müller, R., Illium, S., Phan, T., Haider, T., & Linnhoff-Popien, C.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Fraunhofer Institute for Cognitive Systems (DE)
- Venue
- International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
- Publisher
- IEEE Computer Society
- Published
- 2022-05-09
- Pages
- 1799-1803
- ISSN
- 1548-8403 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2914
- OpenAlex
- W7124303565
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.14
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- anomaly detection, reinforcement learning, non-stationarity, lifelong reinforcement learning, generalization, safety-critical systems, sequential decision making
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