Reinforcement Learning with Perturbed Rewards

  • 2020-02-01 21:15:52
  • Jingkang Wang, Yang Liu, Bo Li
  • 0

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that reinforcement learning (RL) models arevulnerable in various noisy scenarios. For instance, the observed rewardchannel is often subject to noise in practice (e.g., when rewards are collectedthrough sensors), and is therefore not credible. In addition, for applicationssuch as robotics, a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm can bemanipulated to produce arbitrary errors by receiving corrupted rewards. In thispaper, we consider noisy RL problems with perturbed rewards, which can beapproximated with a confusion matrix. We develop a robust RL framework thatenables agents to learn in noisy environments where only perturbed rewards areobserved. Our solution framework builds on existing RL/DRL algorithms andfirstly addresses the biased noisy reward setting without any assumptions onthe true distribution (e.g., zero-mean Gaussian noise as made in previousworks). The core ideas of our solution include estimating a reward confusionmatrix and defining a set of unbiased surrogate rewards. We prove theconvergence and sample complexity of our approach. Extensive experiments ondifferent DRL platforms show that trained policies based on our estimatedsurrogate reward can achieve higher expected rewards, and converge faster thanexisting baselines. For instance, the state-of-the-art PPO algorithm is able toobtain 84.6% and 80.8% improvements on average score for five Atari games, witherror rates as 10% and 30% respectively.

 

Quick Read (beta)

Reinforcement Learning with Perturbed Rewards

Jingkang Wang
University of Toronto & Vector Institute
Toronto, Canada
[email protected] &Yang Liu
University of California, Santa Cruz
California, USA
[email protected] &Bo Li
University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign
Illinois, USA
[email protected]
Abstract

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.

Reinforcement Learning with Perturbed Rewards


Jingkang Wang University of Toronto & Vector Institute Toronto, Canada [email protected]                        Yang Liu University of California, Santa Cruz California, USA [email protected]                        Bo Li University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign Illinois, USA [email protected]

Copyright © 2020, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.

Introduction

Designing a suitable reward function plays a critical role in building reinforcement learning models for real-world applications. Ideally, one would want to customize reward functions to achieve application-specific goals (?). In practice, however, it is difficult to design a reward function that produces credible rewards in the presence of noise. This is because the output from any reward function is subject to multiple kinds of randomness:

  • Inherent Noise. For instance, sensors on a robot will be affected by physical conditions such as temperature and lighting, and therefore will report back noisy observed rewards.

  • Application-Specific Noise. In machine teaching tasks (?), when an RL agent receives feedback/instructions, different human instructors might provide drastically different feedback that leads to biased rewards for machine.

  • Adversarial Noise.  ? have shown that by adding adversarial perturbation to each frame of the game, they can mislead pre-trained RL policies arbitrarily.

Assuming an arbitrary noise model makes solving this noisy RL problem extremely challenging. Instead, we focus on a specific noisy reward model which we call perturbed rewards, where the observed rewards by RL agents are learnable. The perturbed rewards are generated via a confusion matrix that flips the true reward to another one according to a certain distribution. This is not a very restrictive setting (?) to start with, even considering that the noise could be adversarial: For instance, adversaries can manipulate sensors via reversing the reward value.

In this paper, we develop an unbiased reward estimator aided robust framework that enables an RL agent to learn in a noisy environment with observing only perturbed rewards. The main challenge is that the observed rewards are likely to be biased, and in RL or DRL the accumulated errors could amplify the reward estimation error over time. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work addressing robust RL in the biased rewards setting (existing work need to assume the unbiased noise distribution). We do not require any assumption on the knowledge of true reward distribution or adversarial strategies, other than the fact that the generation of noises follows a reward confusion matrix. We address the issue of estimating the reward confusion matrices by proposing an efficient and flexible estimation module for settings with deterministic rewards.

? provided preliminary studies for this noisy reward problem and gave some general negative results. The authors proved a No Free Lunch theorem, which is, without any assumption about what the reward corruption is, all agents can be misled. Our results do not contradict with the results therein, as we consider a stochastic noise generation model (that leads to a set of perturbed rewards).

We analyze the convergence and sample complexity for the policy trained using our proposed method based on surrogate rewards, using Q-Learning as an example. We then conduct extensive experiments on OpenAI Gym (?) and show that the proposed reward robust RL method achieves comparable performance with the policy trained using the true rewards. In some cases, our method even achieves higher cumulative reward - this is surprising to us at first, but we conjecture that the inserted noise together with our noise-removal unbiased estimator add another layer of exploration, which proves to be beneficial in some settings.

Our contributions are summarized as follows: (1) We formulate and generalize the idea of defining a simple but effective unbiased estimator for true rewards under reinforcement learning setting. The proposed estimator helps guarantee the convergence to the optimal policy even when the RL agents only have noisy observations of the rewards. (2) We analyze the convergence to the optimal policy and the finite sample complexity of our reward-robust RL methods, using Q-Learning as the example. (3) Extensive experiments on OpenAI Gym show that our proposed algorithms perform robustly even at high noise rates. Code is online available: https://github.com/wangjksjtu/rl-perturbed-reward.

Related Work

Robust Reinforcement Learning

It is known that RL algorithms are vulnerable in noisy environments (?). Recent studies  (???) show that learned RL policies can be easily misled with small perturbations in observations. The presence of noise is very common in real-world environments, especially in robotics-relevant applications (??). Consequently, robust RL algorithms have been widely studied, aiming to train a robust policy that is capable of withstanding perturbed observations (???) or transferring to unseen environments (??). However, these algorithms mainly focus on noisy vision observations, instead of observed rewards. Some early works (????) on noisy reward RL rely on the knowledge of unbiased noise distribution, which limits their applicability to more general biased rewards settings. A couple of recent works (??) have looked into a parallel question of training robust RL algorithms with uncertainty in models.

Learning with Noisy Data

Learning appropriately with biased data has received quite a bit of attention in recent machine learning studies (??????). The idea of this line of works is to define unbiased surrogate loss functions to recover the true loss using the knowledge of the noise. Our work is the first to formally establish this extension both theoretically and empirically. Our quantitative understandings will provide practical insights when implementing reinforcement learning algorithms in noisy environments.

Problem Formulation and Preliminaries

In this section, we define our problem of learning from perturbed rewards in reinforcement learning. Throughout this paper, we will use perturbed reward and noisy reward interchangeably, considering that the noise could come from both intentional perturbation and natural randomness. In what follows, we formulate our Markov Decision Process (MDP) and reinforcement learning (RL) problem with perturbed rewards.

Reinforcement Learning: The Noise-Free Setting

Our RL agent interacts with an unknown environment and attempts to maximize the total of its collected reward. The environment is formalized as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), denoting as =𝒮,𝒜,,𝒫,γ. At each time t, the agent in state st𝒮 takes an action at𝒜, which returns a reward r(st,at,st+1) (which we will also shorthand as rt) 11 1 We do not restrict the reward to deterministic in general, except for when we need to estimate the noises in the perturbed reward (Section 3.3)., and leads to the next state st+1𝒮 according to a transition probability kernel 𝒫. 𝒫 encodes the probability a(st,st+1), and commonly is unknown to the agent. The agent’s goal is to learn the optimal policy, a conditional distribution π(a|s) that maximizes the state’s value function. The value function calculates the cumulative reward the agent is expected to receive given it would follow the current policy π after observing the current state st: Vπ(s)=𝔼π[k=0γkrt+k+1st=s], where 0γ1 is a discount factor (γ=1 indicates an undiscounted MDP setting (???)). Intuitively, the agent evaluates how preferable each state is, given the current policy. From the Bellman Equation, the optimal value function is given by V(s)=maxa𝒜st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)[rt+γV(st+1)]. It is a standard practice for RL algorithms to learn a state-action value function, also called the Q-function. Q-function denotes the expected cumulative reward if agent chooses a in the current state and follows π thereafter: Qπ(s,a)=𝔼π[r(st,at,st+1)+γVπ(st+1)st=s,at=a].

Perturbed Reward in RL

In many practical settings, the RL agent does not observe the reward feedback perfectly. We consider the following MDP with perturbed reward, denoting as ~=𝒮,𝒜,,C,𝒫,γ22 2 The MDP with perturbed reward can equivalently be defined as a tuple ~=𝒮,𝒜,,~,𝒫,γ, with the perturbation function C implicitly defined as the difference between and ~.: instead of observing rt at each time t directly (following his action), our RL agent only observes a perturbed version of rt, denoting as r~t~. For most of our presentations, we focus on the cases where , ~ are finite sets; but our results generalize to the continuous reward settings with discretization techinques.

The generation of r~ follows a certain function C:𝒮×~. To let our presentation stay focused, we consider the following state-independent flipping error rates model: if the rewards are binary (consider r+ and r-), r~(st,at,st+1) (r~t) can be characterized by the following noise rate parameters e+,e-: e+=(r~(st,at,st+1)=r-|r(st,at,st+1)=r+),e-=(r~(st,at,st+1)=r+|r(st,at,st+1)=r-) . When the signal levels are beyond binary, suppose there are M outcomes in total, denoting as [R0,R1,,RM-1]. r~t will be generated according to the following confusion matrix 𝐂M×M where each entry cj,k indicates the flipping probability for generating a perturbed outcome: cj,k=(r~t=Rk|rt=Rj). Again we’d like to note that we focus on settings with finite reward levels for most of our paper, but we provide discussions later on how to handle continuous rewards.

In the paper, we also generalize our solution to the case without knowing the noise rates (i.e., the reward confusion matrices) for settings in which the rewards for each (state, action) pair is deterministic, which is different from the assumption of knowing them as adopted in many supervised learning works (?). Instead we will estimate the confusion matrices in our framework.

Learning with Perturbed Rewards

In this section, we first introduce an unbiased estimator for binary rewards in our reinforcement learning setting when the error rates are known. This idea is inspired by (?), but we will extend the method to the multi-outcome, as well as the continuous reward settings.

Unbiased Estimator for True Reward

With the knowledge of noise rates (reward confusion matrices), we are able to establish an unbiased approximation of the true reward in a similar way as done in (?). We will call such a constructed unbiased reward as a surrogate reward. To give an intuition, we start with replicating the results for binary reward ={r-,r+} in our RL setting:

Lemma 1.

Let r be bounded. Then, if we define,

r^(st,at,st+1):={(1-e-)r+-e+r-1-e+-e-(r~(st,at,st+1)=r+)(1-e+)r--e-r+1-e+-e-(r~(st,at,st+1)=r-) (1)

we have for any r(st,at,st+1), Er~|r[r^(st,at,st+1)]=r(st,at,st+1).

In the standard supervised learning setting, the above property guarantees convergence - as more training data are collected, the empirical surrogate risk converges to its expectation, which is the same as the expectation of the true risk (due to unbiased estimators). This is also the intuition why we would like to replace the reward terms with surrogate rewards in our RL algorithms.

The above idea can be generalized to the multi-outcome setting in a fairly straight-forward way. Define 𝐑^:=[r^(r~=R0),r^(r~=R1),,r^(r~=RM-1)], where r^(r~=Rk) denotes the value of the surrogate reward when the observed reward is Rk. Let 𝐑=[R0;R1;;RM-1] be the bounded reward matrix with M values. We have the following results:

Lemma 2.

Suppose CM×M is invertible. With defining:

𝐑^=𝐂-1𝐑 (2)

we have for any r(st,at,st+1), Er~|r[r^(st,at,st+1)]=r(st,at,st+1).

Continuous reward

When the reward signal is continuous, we discretize it into M intervals, and view each interval as a reward level, with its value approximated by its middle point. With increasing M, this quantization error can be made arbitrarily small. Our method is then the same as the solution for the multi-outcome setting, except for replacing rewards with discretized ones. Note that the finer-degree quantization we take, the smaller the quantization error - but we would suffer from learning a bigger reward confusion matrix. This is a trade-off question that can be addressed empirically.

So far we have assumed knowing the confusion matrices and haven’t restricted our solution to any specific setting, but we will address this additional estimation issue focusing on determinisitc reward settings, and present our complete algorithm therein.

Convergence and Sample Complexity: Q-Learning

We now analyze the convergence and sample complexity of our surrogate reward based RL algorithms (with assuming knowing 𝐂), taking Q-Learning as an example.

Convergence guarantee

First, the convergence guarantee is stated in the following theorem:

Theorem 1.

Given a finite MDP, denoting as M^=S,A,R^,P,γ, the Q-learning algorithm with surrogate rewards, given by the update rule,

Qt+1(st,at)=(1-αt)Q(st,at)+αt[r^t+γmaxb𝒜Q(st+1,b)], (3)

converges w.p.1 to the optimal Q-function as long as tαt= and tαt2<.

Note that the term on the right hand of Eqn. (3) includes surrogate reward r^ estimated using Eqn. (1) and Eqn. (2). Theorem 1 states that agents will converge to the optimal policy w.p.1 when replacing the rewards with surrogate rewards, despite of the noises in the observed rewards. This result is not surprising - though the surrogate rewards introduce larger variance, we are grateful of their unbiasedness, which grants us the convergence. In other words, the addition of the perturbed reward does not affect the convergence guarantees of Q-Learning with surrogate rewards.

Sample complexity

To establish our sample complexity results, we first introduce a generative model following previous literature (???). This is a practical MDP setting to simplify the analysis.

Definition 1.

A generative model G(M) for an MDP M is a sampling model which takes a state-action pair (st,at) as input, and outputs the corresponding reward r(st,at) and the next state st+1 randomly with the probability of Pa(st,st+1), i.e., st+1P(|s,a).

Exact value iteration is impractical if the agents follow the generative models above exactly (?). Consequently, we introduce a phased Q-Learning which is similar to the ones presented in (??) for the convenience of proving our sample complexity results. We briefly outline phased Q-Learning as follows - the complete description (Algorithm 2) can be found in Appendix A.

Definition 2.

Phased Q-Learning algorithm takes m samples per phase by calling generative model G(M). It uses the collected m samples to estimate the transition probability P and then update the estimated value function per phase. Calling generative model G(M^) means that surrogate rewards r^ are returned and used to update the value function.

The sample complexity of Phased Q-Learning is given as follows:

Theorem 2.

(Upper Bound) Let r[0,Rmax] be bounded reward, C be an invertible reward confusion matrix with det(C) denoting its determinant. For an appropriate choice of m, the Phased Q-Learning algorithm calls the generative model G(M^) O(|S||A|Tϵ2(1-γ)2det(C)2log|S||A|Tδ) times in T epochs, and returns a policy such that for all state sS, |Vπ(s)-V(s)|ϵ,ϵ>0, w.p. 1-δ,0<δ<1.

Theorem 2 states that, to guarantee the convergence to the optimal policy, the number of samples needed is no more than O(1/det(𝐂)2) times of the one needed when the RL agent observes true rewards perfectly. This additional constant is the price we pay for the noise presented in our learning environment. When the noise level is high, we expect to see a much higher 1/det(𝐂)2; otherwise when we are in a low-noise regime , Q-Learning can be very efficient with surrogate reward (?). Note that Theorem 2 gives the upper bound in discounted MDP setting; for undiscounted setting (γ=1), the upper bound is at the order of O(|𝒮||𝒜|T3ϵ2det(𝐂)2log|𝒮||𝒜|Tδ). This result is not surprising, as the phased Q-Learning helps smooth out the noise in rewards in consecutive steps. We will experimentally test how the bias removal step performs without explicit phases.

While the surrogate reward guarantees the unbiasedness, we sacrifice the variance at each of our learning steps, and this in turn delays the convergence (as also evidenced in the sample complexity bound). It can be verified that the variance of surrogate reward is bounded when 𝐂 is invertible, and it is always higher than the variance of true reward. This is summarized in the following theorem:

Theorem 3.

Let r[0,Rmax] be bounded reward and confusion matrix C is invertible. Then, the variance of surrogate reward r^ is bounded as follows: Var(r)Var(r^)M2det(C)2Rmax2.

To give an intuition of the bound, when we have binary reward, the variance for surrogate reward bounds as follows: 𝐕𝐚𝐫(r)𝐕𝐚𝐫(r^)4Rmax2(1-e+-e-)2. As e-+e+1, the variance becomes unbounded and the proposed estimator is no longer effective, nor will it be well-defined.

Variance reduction

In practice, there is a trade-off question between bias and variance by tuning a linear combination of 𝐑 and 𝐑^, i.e., 𝐑proxy=η𝐑+(1-η)𝐑^, via choosing an appropriate η[0,1]. Other variance reduction techniques in RL with noisy environment, for instance (?), can be combined with our proposed bias removal technique too. We test them in the experiment section.

Estimation of Confusion Matrices

In previous solutions, we have assumed the knowledge of reward confusion matrices, in order to compute the surrogate reward. This knowledge is often not available in practice. Estimating these confusion matrices is challenging without knowing any ground truth reward information; but we would like to remark that efficient algorithms have been developed to estimate the confusion matrices in supervised learning settings (????). The idea in these algorithms is to dynamically refine the error rates based on aggregated rewards. Note this approach is not different from the inference methods in aggregating crowdsourcing labels, as referred in the literature (???). We adapt this idea to our reinforcement learning setting, which is detailed as follows.

The estimation procedure is only for the case with deterministic reward, but not for stochastic rewards. The reason is that we will use repeated observations to refine an estimated ground truth reward, which will be leveraged to estimate the confusion matrix. With uncertainty in the true reward, it is not possible to distinguish a clean case with true reward 𝐂𝐑 from the perturbed reward case with true reward 𝐑 and added noise by confusion matrix 𝐂.

Algorithm 1 Reward Robust RL (sketch)
1:   Input: ~, R~(s,a), η
2:   Output: Q(s,a), π(s)
3:   Initialize value function Q(s,a) arbitrarily.
4:   while Q is not converged do
5:      Initialize state s𝒮, observed reward set R~(s,a)
6:      Set confusion matrix 𝐂~ as identity matrix 𝐈
7:      while s is not terminal do
8:         Choose a from s using policy derived from Q
9:         Take action a, observe s and noisy reward r~
10:         if collecting enough r~ for all 𝒮×𝒜 pairs then
11:            Get predicted true reward r¯ using majority voting
12:            Re-estimate 𝐂~ based on r~ and r¯ (using Eqn. 5)
13:         end if
14:         Obtain surrogate reward r˙ (𝐑^=(1-η)𝐑+η𝐂~-1𝐑)
15:         Update Q using surrogate reward
16:         ss
17:      end while
18:   end while
19:   return Q(s,a) and π(s)

At each training step, the RL agent collects the noisy reward and the current state-action pair. Then, for each pair in 𝒮×𝒜, the agent predicts the true reward based on accumulated historical observations of reward for the corresponding state-action pair via, e.g., averaging (majority voting). Finally, with the predicted true reward and the accuracy (error rate) for each state-action pair, the estimated reward confusion matrices 𝐂~ are given by

r¯(s,a)=argmaxRi#[r~(s,a)=Ri], (4)
c~i,j=(s,a)𝒮×𝒜#[r~(s,a)=Rj|r¯(s,a)=Ri](s,a)𝒮×𝒜#[r¯(s,a)=Ri], (5)

where in above #[] denotes the number of state-action pair that satisfies the condition [] in the set of observed rewards R~(s,a) (see Algorithm 1 and 3); r¯(s,a) and r~(s,a) denote predicted true rewards (using majority voting) and observed rewards when the state-action pair is (s,a). We break potential ties in Eqn. (4) equally likely. The above procedure of updating c~i,j continues indefinitely as more observation arrives. Our final definition of surrogate reward replaces a known reward confusion 𝐂 in Eqn. (2) with our estimated one 𝐂~. We denote this estimated surrogate reward as r˙.

(a) Q-Learning
(b) CEM
(c) SARSA
(d) DQN
(e) DDQN
Figure 1: Learning curves from five RL algorithms on CartPole game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~  and estimated surrogate rewards (r˙)  (η=1 . Note that 𝐂 are unknown to the agents and each experiment is repeated 10 times with different random seeds. We plotted 10% to 90% percentile area with its mean highlighted. Full results are in Appendix D (Figure 6).

We present (Reward Robust RL) in Algorithm 133 3 One complete Q-Learning implementation (Algorithm 3) is provided in Appendix C.. Note that the algorithm is rather generic, and we can plug in any exisitng RL algorithm into our reward robust one, with only changes in replacing the rewards with our estimated surrogate rewards.

Experimental Results

In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the noisy reward robust RL mechanism with different games, under various noise settings. Due to the space limit, more experimental results can be found in Appendix D.

Experimental Setup

Environments and RL Algorithms

To fully test the performance under different environments, we evaluate the proposed robust reward RL method on two classic control games (CartPole, Pendulum) and seven Atari 2600 games (AirRaid, Alien, Carnival, MsPacman, Pong, Phoenix, Seaquest), which encompass a large variety of environments, as well as rewards. Specifically, the rewards could be unary (CartPole), binary (most of Atari games), multivariate (Pong) and even continuous (Pendulum). A set of state-of-the-art RL algorithms are experimented with, while training under different amounts of noise (See Table 3)44 4 The detailed settings are accessible in Appendix B.. For each game and algorithm, unless otherwise stated, three policies are trained with different random initialization to decrease the variance.

(a) DDPG (symmetric)
(b) DDPG (rand-one)
(c) DDPG (rand-all)
(d) NAF (rand-all)
Figure 2: Learning curves from DDPG and NAF on Pendulum game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~  and surrogate rewards (r^) (η=1 . Both symmetric and asymmetric noise are conduced in the experiments and each experiment is repeated 3 times with different random seeds. Full results are in Appendix D (Figure 9).

Reward Post-Processing

For each game and RL algorithm, we test the performance for learning with true rewards, noisy rewards and surrogate rewards. Both symmetric and asymmetric noise settings with different noise levels are tested. For symmetric noise, the confusion matrices are symmetric. As for asymmetric noise, two types of random noise are tested: 1) rand-one, each reward level can only be perturbed into another reward; 2) rand-all, each reward could be perturbed to any other reward, via adding a random noise matrix. To measure the amount of noise w.r.t confusion matrices, we define the weight of noise ω in Appendix B. The larger ω is, the higher the noise rates are.

Robustness Evaluation

CartPole

The goal in CartPole is to prevent the pole from falling by controlling the cart’s direction and velocity. The reward is +1 for every step taken, including the termination step. When the cart or pole deviates too much or the episode length is longer than 200, the episode terminates. Due to the unary reward {+1} in CartPole, a corrupted reward -1 is added as the unexpected error (e-=0). As a result, the reward space is extended to {+1,-1}. Five algorithms Q-Learning (?), CEM (?), SARSA (?), DQN (?) and DDQN (?) are evaluated.

Table 1: Average scores of various RL algorithms on CartPole and Pendulum with noisy rewards (r~) and surrogate rewards under known (r^) or estimated (r˙) noise rates. Note that the results for last two algorithms DDPG (rand-one) & NAF (rand-all) are on Pendulum, but the others are on CartPole.
 Noise Rate Reward Q-Learn CEM SARSA DQN DDQN DDPG  NAF
ω=0.1 r~ 170.0 98.1 165.2 187.2 187.8 -1.03 -4.48
r^ 165.8 108.9 173.6 200.0 181.4 -0.87 -0.89
r˙ 181.9 99.3 171.5 200.0 185.6 -0.90 -1.13
ω=0.3 r~ 134.9 28.8 144.4 173.4 168.6 -1.23 -4.52
r^ 149.3 85.9 152.4 175.3 198.7 -1.03 -1.15
r˙ 161.1 82.2 159.6 186.7 200.0 -1.05 -1.36
ω=0.7 r~ 56.6 19.2 12.6 17.2 11.8 -8.76 -7.35
r^ 177.6 87.1 151.4 185.8 195.2 -1.09 -2.26
r˙ 172.1 83.0 174.4 189.3 191.3
Figure 3: Learning curves from PPO on Pong-v4 game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~  and surrogate rewards (η=1) (r^ . The noise rate ω increases from 0.6 to 0.9, with a step of 0.1. Full results are in Appendix D (Figure 10).
Table 2: Average scores of PPO on five selected games with noisy rewards (r~) and surrogate rewards under known (r^) or estimated (r˙) noise rates.
  Noise Rate Reward Lift () Alien Carnival Phoenix MsPacman Seaquest
ω=0.1 r~ 1835.1 1239.3 4609.0 1709.1 849.2
r^ 70.4% 1737.0 3966.8 7586.4 2547.3 1610.6
r˙ 84.6% 2844.1 5515.0 5668.8 2294.5 2333.9
ω=0.3 r~ 538.2 919.9 2600.3 1109.6 408.7
r^ 119.8% 1668.6 4220.1 4171.6 1470.3 727.8
r˙ 80.8% 1542.9 4094.3 2589.1 1591.2 262.4
ω=0.7 r~ 495.2 380.3 126.5 491.6 0.0
r^ 757.4% 1805.9 4088.9 4970.4 1447.8 492.5
r˙ 648.9% 1618.0 4529.2 2792.1 1916.7 328.5
(a) Q-Learning
(b) CEM
(c) SARSA
(d) DQN
(e) DDQN
Figure 4: Learning curves from five reward robust RL algorithms on CartPole game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~ , sample-mean noisy rewards  , estimated surrogate rewards (r˙  and sample-mean estimated surrogate rewards  . Full results are in Appendix D (Figure 8).

In Figure 1, we show that our estimator successfully produces meaningful surrogate rewards that adapt the underlying RL algorithms to the noisy settings, without any assumption of the true distribution of rewards. With the noise rate increasing (from 0.1 to 0.9), the models with noisy rewards converge slower due to larger biases. However, we observe that the models (DQN and DDQN) always converge to the best score 200 with the help of surrogate rewards.

In some circumstances (slight noise - see Figure 0(b)0(c)), the surrogate rewards even lead to faster convergence. This points out an interesting observation: learning with surrogate reward sometimes even outperforms the case with observing the true reward. We conjecture that the way of adding noise and then removing the bias (or moderate noise) introduces implicit exploration. This may also imply why some algorithms with estimated confusion matrices 𝐂~ leads to better results than with known 𝐂 in some cases (Table 1).

Pendulum

The goal in Pendulum is to keep a frictionless pendulum standing up. Different from the CartPole setting, the rewards in pendulum are continuous: r(-16.28,0.0]. The closer the reward is to zero, the better performance the model achieves. For simplicity, we firstly discretized (-17,0] into 17 intervals: (-17,-16],(-16,-15],,(-1,0], with its value approximated using its maximum point. After the quantization step, the surrogate rewards can be estimated using multi-outcome extensions.

We experiment two popular algorithms, DDPG (?) and NAF (?) in this game. In Figure 2, both algorithms perform well with surrogate rewards under different amounts of noise. In most cases, the biases were corrected in the long-term, even when the amount of noise is extensive (e.g., ω=0.7). The quantitative scores on CartPole and Pendulum are given in Table 1, where the scores are averaged based on the last 30 episodes. Our reward robust method is able to achieve good scores consistently.

Atari

We validate our algorithm on seven Atari 2600 games using the state-of-the-art algorithm PPO (?). The games are chosen to cover a variety of environments. The rewards in the Atari games are clipped into {-1,0,1}. We leave the detailed settings to Appendix B.

Results for PPO on Pong-v4 in symmetric noise setting are presented in Figure 3. More results on other Atari games and noise settings are given in Appendix D. Similar to previous results, our surrogate estimator performs consistently well and helps PPO converge to the optimal policy. Table 2 shows the average scores of PPO on five selected Atari games with different amounts of noise (symmetric & asymmetric). In particular, when the noise rates e+=e->0.3, agents with surrogate rewards obtain significant amounts of improvements in average scores. For the cases with unknown 𝐂 (r˙ in Table 2), due to the large state-space (image-input) in confusion matrix estimation, we embed and consider the adjacent frames within a batch as the same state and set the memory size for states as 1,000. Please refer to Appendix B for details.

Compatible with Variance Reduction Techniques

As illustrated in Theorem 3, our surrogate rewards introduce larger variance while conducting unbiased estimation, which are likely to decrease the stability of RL algorithms. Apart from the linear combination idea (a linear trade-off), some variance reduction techniques in statistics (e.g., correlated sampling) can also be applied to our method. Specially, ? proposed to use a reward estimator to compensate for stochastic corrupted-reward signals. It is worthy to notice that their method is designed for variance reduction under zero-mean noises, which is no longer efficacious in more general perturbed-reward setting. However, it is potential to integrate their method with our robust-reward RL framework because surrogate rewards provide unbiasedness guarantee.

To verify this idea, we repeated the experiments of Cartpole but included variance reduction step for estimated surrogate rewards. Following ?, we adopted sample mean as a simple approximator during the training and set sequence length as 100. As shown in Figure 4, the models with only variance reduction technique (red lines) suffer from huge regrets, and in general do not converge to the optimal policies. Nevertheless, the variance reduction step helps surrogate rewards (purple lines) to achieve faster convergence or better performance in multiple cases. Similarly, Table 4 in Appendix C provides quantitative results which show that our surrogate reward benefits from variance reduction techniques (“ours + VRT”), especially when the noise rate is high.

Conclusions

Improving the robustness of RL in the settings with perturbed and noisy rewards is important given the fact that such noises are common when exploring a real-world scenario, such as sensor errors. In addition, in adversarial environments, perturbed reward could be leveraged Different robust RL algorithms have been proposed but they either only focus on the noisy observations or need strong assumption on the unbiased noise distribution for observed rewards. In this paper, we propose the first simple yet effective RL framework for dealing with biased noisy rewards. The convergence guarantee and finite sample complexity of Q-Learning (or its variant) with estimated surrogate rewards are provided. To validate the effectiveness of our approach, extensive experiments are conducted on OpenAI Gym, showing that surrogate rewards successfully rescue models from misleading rewards even at high noise rates. We believe this work will further shed light on exploring robust RL approaches under different noisy rewards observations in real-world environments.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by National Science Foundation award CCF-1910100 and DARPA award ASED-00009970.

References

Appendix A Proofs

Proof of Lemma 1.

For simplicity, we shorthand r^(st,at,st+1),r~(st,at,st+1),r(st,at,st+1) as r^,r~,r, and let r+,r-,r^+,r^- denote the general reward levels and corresponding surrogate ones:

𝔼r~|r(r^)=r~|r(r^=r^-)r^-+r~|r(r^=r^+)r^+. (6)

When r=r+, from the definition in Lemma 1:

r~|r(r^=r^-)=e+,r~|r(r^=r^+)=1-e+.

Taking the definition of surrogate rewards Eqn. (1) into Eqn. (6), we have

𝔼r~|r(r^) =e+r^-+(1-e+)r^+
=e+(1-e+)r-7-e-r+1-e--e++(1-e+)(1-e-)r+-e+r-1-e--e+=r+.

Similarly, when r=r-, it also verifies 𝔼r~|r[r^(st,at,st+1)]=r(st,at,st+1).

Proof of Lemma 2.

The idea of constructing unbiased estimator is easily adapted to multi-outcome reward settings via writing out the conditions for the unbiasedness property (s.t. 𝔼r~|r[r^]=r.). For simplicity, we shorthand r^(r~=Ri) as R^i in the following proofs. Similar to Lemma 1, we need to solve the following set of functions to obtain r^:

{R0=c0,0R^0+c0,1R^1++c0,M-1R^M-1R1=c1,0R^0+c1,1R^1++c1,M-1R^M-1RM-1=cM-1,0R^0+cM-1,1R^1++cM-1,M-1R^M-1

where R^i denotes the value of the surrogate reward when the observed reward is Ri. Define 𝐑:=[R0;R1;;RM-1], and 𝐑^:=[R^0,R^1,,R^M-1], then the above equations are equivalent to: 𝐑=𝐂𝐑^. If the confusion matrix 𝐂 is invertible, we obtain the surrogate reward:

𝐑^=𝐂-1𝐑.

According to above definition, for any true reward level Ri,i=0,1,,M-1, we have

𝔼r~|r=Ri[r^]=ci,0R^0+ci,1R^1++ci,M-1R^M-1=Ri.

Furthermore, the probabilities for observing surrogate rewards can be written as follows:

𝐏^ =[p^1,p^2,,p^M]=[jpjcj,1,jpjcj,2,,jpjcj,M],

where p^i=jpjcj,i, and p^i, pi represent the probabilities of occurrence for surrogate reward R^i and true reward Ri respectively.

Corollary 1.

Let p^i and pi denote the probabilities of occurrence for surrogate reward r^(r~=Ri) and true reward Ri. Then the surrogate reward satisfies,

st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)r(st,a,st+1)=jpjRj=jp^jR^j. (7)
Proof of Corollary 1.

From Lemma 2, we have,

st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)r(st,a,st+1)=st+1𝒮;Rja(st,st+1,Rj)Rj
=Rjst+1𝒮a(st,st+1)Rj=RjpjRj=jpjRj.

Consequently,

jp^jR^j =jkpkck,jR^j=kpkjck,jR^j
=kpkRk=st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)r(st,a,st+1).

To establish Theorem 1, we need an auxiliary result (Lemma 3) from stochastic process approximation, which is widely adopted for the convergence proof for Q-Learning (??).

Lemma 3.

The random process {Δt} taking values in Rn and defined as

Δt+1(x)=(1-αt(x))Δt(x)+αt(x)Ft(x)

converges to zero w.p.1 under the following assumptions:

  • 0αt1, tαt(x)= and tαt(x)2<;

  • ||𝔼[Ft(x)|t]||Wγ||Δt||, with γ<1;

  • 𝒗𝒂𝒓[Ft(x)|t]C(1+||Δt||W2), for C>0.

Here Ft={Δt,Δt-1,,Ft-1,αt,} stands for the past at step t, αt(x) is allowed to depend on the past insofar as the above conditions remain valid. The notation ||||W refers to some weighted maximum norm.

Proof of Lemma 3.

See previous literature (??). ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.

For simplicity, we abbreviate st, st+1, Qt, Qt+1, rt, r^t and αt as s, s, Q, Q, r, r^, and α, respectively.

Subtracting from both sides the quantity Q(s,a) in Eqn. (3):

Q(s,a)-Q(s,a)= (1-α)(Q(s,a)-Q(s,a))+α[r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)-Q(s,a)].

Let Δt(s,a)=Q(s,a)-Q(s,a) and Ft(s,a)=r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)-Q(s,a).

Δt+1(s,a)=(1-α)Δt(s,a)+αFt(s,a).

In consequence,

𝔼[Ft(x)|t] =s𝒮;r^a(s,s,r^)[r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)]-Q(s,a)
=s𝒮;r^a(s,s,r^)r^+s𝒮a(s,s)[γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)-r-γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)]
=s𝒮;r^a(s,s,r^)r^-s𝒮a(s,s)r+s𝒮a(s,s)γ[maxb𝒜Q(s,b)-maxb𝒜Q(s,b)]
=jp^jr^j-s𝒮a(s,s)r+s𝒮a(s,s)γ[maxb𝒜Q(s,b)-maxb𝒜Q(s,b)]
=s𝒮a(s,s)γ[maxb𝒜Q(s,b)-maxb𝒜Q(s,b)]
γs𝒮a(s,s)maxb𝒜,s𝒮|Q(s,b)-Q(s,b)|
=γs𝒮a(s,s)||Q-Q||=γ||Q-Q||=γ||Δt||.

Finally,

𝐕𝐚𝐫[Ft(x)|t] =𝔼[(r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)-s𝒮;r^(s,s,r^)[r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)])2]
=𝐕𝐚𝐫[r^+γmaxb𝒜Q(s,b)|t]
.

Because r^ is bounded, it can be clearly verified that

𝐕𝐚𝐫[Ft(x)|t]C(1+||Δt||W2)

for some constant C. Then, due to the Lemma 3, Δt converges to zero w.p.1, i.e., Q(s,a) converges to Q(s,a). ∎

The procedure of Phased Q-Learning is described as Algorithm 2:

Algorithm 2 Phased Q-Learning
  Input: G(): generative model of =(𝒮,𝒜,,𝒫,γ), T: number of iterations.
  Output: V^(s): value function, π^(s,t): policy function.
  Set V^T(s)=0
  for t=T-1,,0 do
     Calling G() m times for each state-action pair.
^a(st,st+1)=#[(st,at)st+1]m
     Set
V^(st) =maxa𝒜st+1𝒮^a(st,st+1)[rt+γV^(st+1)]
π^(s,t) =argmaxa𝒜V^(st)
  end for
  return V^(s) and π^(s,t)

Note that ^ here is the estimated transition probability, which is different from in Eqn. (7).

To obtain the sample complexity results, the range of our surrogate reward needs to be known. Assuming reward r is bounded in [0,Rmax], Lemma 4 below states that the surrogate reward is also bounded, when the confusion matrices are invertible:

Lemma 4.

Let r[0,Rmax] be bounded, where Rmax is a constant; suppose CM×M, the confusion matrix, is invertible with its determinant denoting as det(C). Then the surrogate reward satisfies

0|r^|Mdet(𝐂)Rmax. (8)
Proof of Lemma 4.

From Eqn. (2), we have,

𝐑^=𝐂-1𝐑=adj(𝐂)det(𝐂)𝐑,

where adj(𝐂) is the adjugate matrix of 𝐂; det(𝐂) is the determinant of 𝐂. It is known from linear algebra that,

adj(𝐂)ij=(-1)i+j𝐌ji,

where 𝐌ji is the determinant of the (M-1)×(M-1) matrix that results from deleting row j and column i of 𝐂. Therefore, 𝐌ji is also bounded:

𝐌jiσSn(|sgn(σ)|m=1cm,σn)m=0M-1(n=0M-1cm,n)=1M=1,

where the sum is computed over all permutations σ of the set {0,1,,M-2}; c is the element of 𝐌ji; sgn(σ) returns a value that is +1 whenever the reordering given by σ can be achieved by successively interchanging two entries an even number of times, and -1 whenever it can not.

Consequently,

|R^i|=j|adj(𝐂)ij||Rj|det(𝐂)Mdet(𝐂)Rmax.

Proof of Theorem 2.

From Hoeffding’s inequality, we obtain:

P(|st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)Vt+1(st+1)-st+1𝒮^a(st,st+1)Vt+1(st+1)|ϵ)2exp(-2mϵ2(1-γ)2Rmax2),

because Vt(st) is bounded within Rmax1-γ. In the same way, r^t is bounded by Mdet(𝐂)Rmax from Lemma 4. We then have,

P(|st+1𝒮r^t^a(st,st+1,r^t)r^t-st+1𝒮r^t^^a(st,st+1,r^t)r^t|ϵ)2exp(-2mϵ2det(𝐂)2M2Rmax2).

Further, due to the unbiasedness of surrogate rewards, we have

st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)rt=st+1𝒮;r^t^a(st,st+1,r^t)r^t.

As a result,

|Vt(s)-V^t(s)| =maxa𝒜st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)[rt+γVt+1(st+1)]-maxa𝒜st+1𝒮^a(st,st+1)[r^t+γVt+1(st+1)]
ϵ1+γmaxa𝒜|st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)Vt+1(st+1)-st+1𝒮^a(st,st+1)Vt+1(st+1)|
+maxa𝒜|st+1𝒮a(st,st+1)rt-st+1𝒮;r^t^a(st,st+1,r^t)r^t|
γmaxs𝒮|Vt+1(s)-V^t+1(s)|+ϵ1+γϵ2

In the same way,

|Vt(s)-V^t(s)|γmaxs𝒮|Vt+1(s)-V^t+1(s)|+ϵ1+γϵ2

Recursing the two equations in two directions (0T), we get

maxs𝒮|V(s)-V^(s)| (ϵ1+γϵ2)+γ(ϵ1+γϵ2)++γT-1(ϵ1+γϵ2)
=(ϵ1+γϵ2)(1-γT)1-γ
maxs𝒮|V(s)-V^(s)| (ϵ1+γϵ2)(1-γT)1-γ

Combining these two inequalities above we have:

maxs𝒮|V(s)-V(s)|2(ϵ1+γϵ2)(1-γT)1-γ2(ϵ1+γϵ2)1-γ.

Let ϵ1=ϵ2, so maxs𝒮|V(s)-V(s)|ϵ as long as

ϵ1=ϵ2(1-γ)ϵ2(1+γ).

For arbitrarily small ϵ, by choosing m appropriately, there always exists ϵ1=ϵ2=(1-γ)ϵ2(1+γ) such that the policy error is bounded within ϵ. That is to say, the Phased Q-Learning algorithm can converge to the near optimal policy within finite steps using our proposed surrogate rewards.

Finally, there are |𝒮||𝒜|T transitions under which these conditions must hold, where || represent the number of elements in a specific set. Using a union bound, the probability of failure in any condition is smaller than

2|𝒮||𝒜|Texp(-mϵ2(1-γ)22(1+γ)2min{(1-γ)2,det(𝐂)2M2}).

We set the error rate less than δ, and m should satisfy that

m=O(1ϵ2(1-γ)2det(𝐂)2log|𝒮||𝒜|Tδ).

In consequence, after m|𝒮||𝒜|T calls, which is, O(|𝒮||𝒜|Tϵ2(1-γ)2det(𝐂)2log|𝒮||𝒜|Tδ), the value function converges to the optimal one for every state s, with probability greater than 1-δ. ∎

The above bound is for discounted MDP setting with 0γ<1. For undiscounted setting γ=1, since the total error (for entire trajectory of T time-steps) has to be bounded by ϵ, therefore, the error for each time step has to be bounded by ϵT. Repeating our anayslis, we obtain the following upper bound:

O(|𝒮||𝒜|T3ϵ2det(𝐂)2log|𝒮||𝒜|Tδ).
Proof of Theorem 3.
𝐕𝐚𝐫(r^)-𝐕𝐚𝐫(r) =𝔼[(r^-𝔼[r^])2]-𝔼[(r-𝔼[r])2]
=𝔼[r^2]-𝔼[r^]2+𝔼[r2]-𝔼[r]2
=jp^jRj^2-(jp^jR^j)2-[jpjRj2-(jpjRj)2]
=jp^jRj^2-jpjRj2
=jipici,jRj^2-jpj(icj,iRi^)2
=jpj(icj,iRi^2-(icj,iRi^)2).

Using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

icj,iRi^2=icj,i2i(cj,iRi^)2(icj,iRi^)2.

So we get,

𝐕𝐚𝐫(r^)-𝐕𝐚𝐫(r)0.

In addition,

𝐕𝐚𝐫(r^) =jp^jRj^2-(jp^jR^j)2jp^jRj^2
jp^jM2det(𝐂)2Rmax2=M2det(𝐂)2Rmax2.

Appendix B Experimental Setup

We set up our experiments within the popular OpenAI baselines (?) and keras-rl (?) framework. Specifically, we integrate the algorithms and interact with OpenAI Gym (?) environments (Table 3).

Table 3: RL algorithms utilized in the robustness evaluation.
Environment RL Algorithm
CartPole Q-Learning (?)
CEM (?)
SARSA (?)
DQN (??)
DDQN (?)
Pendulum DDPG (?)
NAF (?)
Atari Games PPO (?)

RL Algorithms

A set of state-of-the-art reinforcement learning algorithms are experimented with while training under different amounts of noise, including Q-Learning (??), Cross-Entropy Method (CEM) (?), Deep SARSA (?), Deep Q-Network (DQN) (???), Dueling DQN (DDQN) (?), Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) (?), Continuous DQN (NAF) (?) and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (?) algorithms. For each game and algorithm, three policies are trained based on different random initialization to decrease the variance in experiments.

Post-Processing Rewards

We explore both symmetric and asymmetric noise of different noise levels. For symmetric noise, the confusion matrices are symmetric, which means the probabilities of corruption for each reward choice are equivalent. For instance, a confusion matrix

𝐂=[0.80.20.20.8]

says that r1 could be corrupted into r2 with a probability of 0.2 and so does r2 (weight = 0.2).

As for asymmetric noise, two types of random noise are tested: 1) rand-one, each reward level can only be perturbed into another reward; 2) rand-all, each reward could be perturbed to any other reward. To measure the amount of noise w.r.t confusion matrices, we define the weight of noise as follows:

𝐂=(1-ω)𝐈+ω𝐍,ω[0,1],

where ω controls the weight of noise; 𝐈 and 𝐍 denote the identity and noise matrix respectively. Suppose there are M outcomes for true rewards, 𝐍 writes as:

𝐍=[n0,0n0,1n0,M-1nM-1,0nM-1,1nM-1,M-1],

where for each row i, 1) rand-one: randomly choose j, s.t ni,j=1 and ni,k0 if kj; 2) rand-all: generate M random numbers that sum to 1, i.e., jni,j=1. For the simplicity, for symmetric noise, we choose 𝐍 as an anti-identity matrix. As a result, ci,j=0, if ij or i+jM.

Perturbed-Reward MDP Example

To obtain an intuitive view of the reward perturbation model, where the observed rewards are generated based on a reward confusion matrix, and meanwhile evaluate our estimation algorithm’s robustness to time-variant noise, we constructed a simple MDP and evaluated the performance of robust reward Q-Learning (Algorithm 1) on different noise ratios (both symmetric and asymmetric). The finite MDP is formulated as Figure 4(a): when the agent reaches state 5, it gets an instant reward of r+=1, otherwise a zero reward r-=0. During the explorations, the rewards are perturbed according to the confusion matrix 𝐂2×2=[1-e-,e-;e+,1-e+].

(a) Finite MDP (six-state)
(b) Estimation process in time-variant noise
Figure 5: Perturbed-Reward MDP Example

For time-variant noise, we generated varying amount of noise at different training stages: 1) e-=0.1,e+=0.3 (0 to 1e4 steps); 2) e-=0.2,e+=0.1 (1e4 to 3e4 steps); 3) e-=0.3,e+=0.2 (3e4 to 5e4 steps); 4) e-=0.1,e+=0.2 (5e4 to 7e4 steps). In Figure 4(b), we show that Algorithm 1 is robust against time-variant noise, which dynamically adjusts the estimated 𝐂~ after the noise distribution changes. Note that we set a maximum memory size for collected noisy rewards to let the agents only learn with recent observations.

Training Details

CartPole and Pendulum

The policies use the default network from keras-rl framework. which is a five-layer fully connected network55 5 https://github.com/keras-rl/keras-rl/examples. There are three hidden layers, each of which has 16 units and followed by a rectified nonlinearity. The last output layer is activated by the linear function. For CartPole, We trained the models using Adam optimizer with the learning rate of 1e-3 for 10,000 steps. The exploration strategy is Boltzmann policy. For DQN and Dueling-DQN, the update rate of target model and the memory size are 1e-2 and 50,000. For Pendulum, We trained DDPG and NAF using Adam optimizer with the learning rate of 5e-4 for 150,000 steps. the update rate of target model and the memory size are 1e-3 and 100,000.

Atari Games

We adopt the pre-processing steps as well as the network architecture from  (?). Specifically, the input to the network is 84×84×4, which is a concatenation of the last 4 frames and converted into 84×84 gray-scale. The network comprises three convolutional layers and two fully connected layers66 6 https://github.com/openai/baselines/tree/master/baselines/common. The kernel size of three convolutional layer are 8×8 with stride 4 (32 filters), 4×4 with stride 2 (64 filters) and 3×3 with stride 1 (64 filters), respectively. Each hidden layer is followed by a rectified nonlinearity. Except for Pong where we train the policies for 3e7 steps, all the games are trained for 5e7 steps with the learning rate of 3e-4. Note that the rewards in the Atari games are discrete and clipped into {-1,0,1}. Except for Pong game, in which r=-1 means missing the ball hit by the adversary, the agents in other games attempt to get higher scores in the episode with binary rewards 0 and 1.

Discretization for Continuous States

To apply proposed estimation algorithm to continuous-state MDPs, we adopt a discretization procedure similar to the pre-processing of continuous rewards As stated before, there is a also trade-off between the quantization error as well as the estimation complexity. However, in practice, we found that the estimation step is highly robust to the quantization level.

For Cartpole, the observations (states) are speed and velocity of the cart, and we discretized them into 8(speeds)×10(velocity)=80 independent states for collecting noisy rewards for each state-action pair. In inverted Pendulum swingup problem, the states (cosθ[-1.0,1.0];sinθ[-1.0,1.0];dθ/dt[-8.0,+8.0], θ denotes the rotation degree of pendulum) are discretized into 20(cosθ)×20(sinθ)×40(dθ/dt)=16,000 states. When the state-space is high-dimensional (e.g., the image inputs for Atari games), we propose a batch-based adjacency embedding policy. In particular, we embedded a batch (32) of adjacent image observations as one single state. For the consideration of time dependency and efficiency, we set a “state queue” which only records the noisy rewards for the latest 1,000 states. The confusion matrices are re-estimated based on current collections of observed noisy rewards every 100 steps.

Appendix C Estimation of Confusion Matrices

Reward Robust RL Algorithms

As stated in proposed reward robust RL framework, the confusion matrix can be estimated dynamically based on the aggregated answers, similar to previous literature in supervised learning (?). To get a concrete view, we take Q-Learning for an example, and the algorithm is called Reward Robust Q-Learning (Algorithm 3). Note that is can be extended to other RL algorithms by plugging confusion matrix estimation steps and the computed surrogate rewards, as shown in the experiments (Figure 6).

Algorithm 3 Reward Robust Q-Learning
  Input: ~=(𝒮,𝒜,~,𝒫,γ): MDP with corrupted reward channel T: transition function T:𝒮×𝒜𝒮 Dmin: lower bound of collected noisy rewards (to collect enough noisy copies)α(0,1): learning rate in the update rule η(0,1): weight of unbiased surrogate reward R~(s,a): set of observed rewards with a maximum size Dmax when the state-action pair is (s,a).
  Output: Q(s,a): value function; π(s): policy function
  Initialize Q: 𝒮×𝒜 arbitrarily
  Set confusion matrix 𝐂~ as identity matrix 𝐈
  while Q is not converged do
     Start in state s𝒮
     while s is not terminal do
        Calculate π according to Q and exploration strategy
        aπ(s); sT(s,a)
        Observe noisy reward r~(s,a) and add it to R~(s,a)
        if (s,a)|R~(s,a)|Dmin then
           Get predicted true reward r¯(s,a) using majority voting in every R~(s,a) (using Eqn. 4)
           Re-estimate confusion matrix 𝐂~ based on r~(s,a) and r¯(s,a) (using Eqn. 5)
        end if
        Obtain surrogate reward r˙(s,a) using 𝐑proxy=(1-η)𝐑+η𝐂-1𝐑
        Q(s,a)(1-α)Q(s,a)+α(r^(s,a)+γmaxaQ(s,a))
        ss
     end while
  end while
  return Q(s,a) and π(s)

State-Dependent Perturbed Reward

In previous sections, to let our presentation stay focused, we consider the state-independent perturbed reward environments, which share the same confusion matrix for all states. In other words, the noise for different states is generated within the same distribution. More generally, the generation of r~ follows a certain function C:𝒮×R~, where different states may correspond to varied noise distributions (also varied confusion matrices). However, our algorithm is still applicable. One intuitive solution is to maintain different confusion matrices 𝐂s for different states. It is worthy to notice that Theorem 1 holds because the surrogate rewards produce an unbiased estimation of true rewards for each state, i.e.,

𝔼r~|r,st[r^(st,at,st+1)]=r(st,at,st+1).

Then we have,

𝔼r~|r[r^(st,at,st+1)] =s𝒮a(st,st+1)r(st,at,st+1)=r(st,at,st+1)

Furthermore, Theorem 2 and 3 can be revised as:

Theorem 4.

(Upper bound) Let r[0,Rmax] be bounded reward, Cs be invertible reward confusion matrices with det(Cs) denoting its determinant. For an appropriate choice of m, the Phased Q-Learning algorithm calls the generative model G(M^)

O(|𝒮||𝒜|Tϵ2(1-γ)2mins𝒮{det(𝐂s)}2log|𝒮||𝒜|Tδ)

times in T epochs, and returns a policy such that for all state sS, |Vπ(s)-V(s)|ϵ,ϵ>0, w.p. 1-δ,0<δ<1.

Theorem 5.

Let r[0,Rmax] be bounded reward and all confusion matrices Cs are invertible. Then, the variance of surrogate reward r^ is bounded as follows:

𝐕𝐚𝐫(r)𝐕𝐚𝐫(r^)M2mins𝒮{det(𝐂s)}2Rmax2.

Let c~i,j|s represents the entry of confusion matrix 𝐂s, indicating the flipping probability for generating a perturbed outcome for state s, i.e., c~i,j|s=(r~t=Rk|rt=Rj,s). Then the estimation step (see Eqn (5)) should be replaced by

c~i,j|s=a𝒜#[r~(s,a)=Rj|r¯(s,a)=Ri]a𝒜#[r¯(s,a)=Ri].

Experimental Results

To validate the effectiveness of robust reward algorithms (like Algorithm 3), where the noise rates are unknown to the agents, we conduct extensive experiments in CartPole. It is worthwhile to notice that the noisy rates are unknown in the explorations of RL agents. Besides, we discretize the observation (velocity, angle, etc.) to construct a set of states and implement like Algorithm 3. The η is set 1.0 in the experiments.

Figure 6 provides learning curves from five algorithms with different kinds of rewards. The proposed estimation algorithms successfully obtain the approximate confusion matrices, and are robust in the unknown noise environments. From Figure 7, we can observe that the estimation of confusion matrices converges very fast. The results are inspiring because we don’t assume any additional knowledge about noise or true reward distribution in the implementation.

(a) Q-Learning
(b) CEM
(c) SARSA
(d) DQN
(e) Dueling-DQN
Figure 6: Complete learning curves from five reward robust RL algorithms (see Algorithm 3) on CartPole game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~) (η=1  and estimated surrogate rewards (r˙ . Note that confusion matrices 𝐂 are unknown to the agents here. From top to the bottom, the noise rates are 0.1, 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9. Here we repeated each experiment 10 times with different random seeds and plotted 10% to 90% percentile area with its mean highlighted.
(a) Q-Learning
(b) CEM
(c) SARSA
(d) DQN
(e) Dueling-DQN
Figure 7: Estimation analysis from five reward robust RL algorithms (see Algorithm 3) on CartPole game. The upper figures are the convergence curves of estimated error rates (from 0.1 to 0.9), where the solid and dashed lines are ground truth and estimation, respectively; The lower figures are the absolute difference between the estimation and ground truth of confusion matrix 𝐂 (normalized matrix norm).
(a) Q-Learning
(b) CEM
(c) SARSA
(d) DQN
(e) DDQN
Figure 8: Learning curves from five reward robust RL algorithms (see Algorithm 3) on CartPole game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~) (η=1 , sample-mean noisy rewards (η=1 , estimated surrogate rewards (r˙  and sample-mean estimated surrogate rewards  . Note that confusion matrices 𝐂 are unknown to the agents here. From top to the bottom, the noise rates are 0.1, 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9. Here we repeated each experiment 10 times with different random seeds and plotted 10% to 90% percentile area with its mean highlighted.
Table 4: Average scores of various RL algorithms on CartPole with sample-mean reward using variance reduction technique (VRT), surrogate rewards (ours) and the combination of them (ours + VRT). Note that the reward confusion matrices are unknown to the agents and each experiment is repeated three times with different random seeds.
 Noise Rate Reward Q-Learn CEM SARSA DQN DDQN
ω=0.1 VRT 173.5 99.7 167.3 181.9 187.4
ours (r˙) 181.9 99.3 171.5 200.0 185.6
ours + VRT 184.5 98.2 174.2 199.3 186.5
ω=0.3 VRT 140.4 43.9 149.8 182.7 177.6
ours (r˙) 161.1 81.8 159.6 186.7 200.0
ours + VRT 161.6 82.2 159.8 188.4 198.2
ω=0.7 VRT 71.1 16.1 13.2 15.6 14.7
ours (r˙) 172.1 83.0 174.4 189.3 191.3
ours + VRT 182.3 79.5 178.9 195.9 194.2

Appendix D Supplementary Experimental Results

Visualizations on Control Games

(a) DDPG (symmetric)
(b) DDPG (rand-one)
(c) DDPG (rand-all)
(d) NAF (rand-all)
Figure 9: Complete learning curves from DDPG and NAF on Pendulum game with true rewards (r)   , noisy rewards (r~  and surrogate rewards (r^) (η=1 . Both symmetric and asymmetric noise are conduced in the experiments. From top to the bottom, the noise rates are 0.1, 0.3, 0.7 and 0.9, respectively. Here we repeated each experiment 6 times with different random seeds and plotted 10% to 90% percentile area with its mean highlighted.

Visualizations on Atari Games77 7 For the clarity purpose, we remove the learning curves (blue ones in previous figures) with true rewards except for Pong-v4 game.

(a) Pong (sysmetric)
(b) Pong (rand-one)
(c) Pong (rand-all)
(d) AirRaid (sysmetric)
(e) Alien (sysmetric)
(f) Carnival (sysmetric)
(g) MsPacman (sysmetric)
(h) Phoenix (sysmetric)
(i) Seaquest (sysmetric)
Figure 10: Complete learning curves from PPO on seven Atari game with true rewards (r , noisy rewards (r~  and surrogate rewards (η=1) (r^ . The noise rates increase from 0.1 to 0.9, with a step of 0.1.