Abstract
Inverse reinforcement learning is the problem of inferring the rewardfunction of an observed agent, given its policy or behavior. Researchersperceive IRL both as a problem and as a class of methods. By categoricallysurveying the current literature in IRL, this article serves as a reference forresearchers and practitioners in machine learning to understand the challengesof IRL and select the approaches best suited for the problem on hand. Thesurvey formally introduces the IRL problem along with its central challengeswhich include accurate inference, generalizability, correctness of priorknowledge, and growth in solution complexity with problem size. The articleelaborates how the current methods mitigate these challenges. We furtherdiscuss the extensions of traditional IRL methods: (i) inaccurate andincomplete perception, (ii) incomplete model, (iii) multiple rewards, and (iv)nonlinear reward functions. This discussion concludes with some broad advancesin the research area and currently open research questions.
Quick Read (beta)
A Survey of Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Challenges, Methods and Progress
Abstract
Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) is the problem of inferring the reward function of an agent, given its policy or observed behavior. Analogous to RL, IRL is perceived both as a problem and as a class of methods. By categorically surveying the current literature in IRL, this article serves as a reference for researchers and practitioners of machine learning to understand the challenges of IRL and select the approaches best suited for the problem on hand. The survey formally introduces the IRL problem along with its central challenges such as the difficulty in performing accurate inference and its generalizability, its sensitivity to prior knowledge, and the disproportionate growth in solution complexity with problem size. The article elaborates how the current methods mitigate these challenges. We further discuss the extensions to traditional IRL methods for handling: $(i)$ inaccurate and incomplete perception, $(ii)$ an incomplete model, $(iii)$ multiple reward functions, and $(iv)$ nonlinear reward functions. This discussion concludes with some broad advances in the research area and currently open research questions.
keywords:
reinforcement learning, reward function, learning from demonstration, generalization, learning accuracy, surveyMSC:
[2010] 0001, 99001 Introduction
Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) is the problem of modeling the preferences of another agent using its observed behavior, thereby avoiding a manual specification of its reward function (Russell1998; Ng2000). In the past decade or so, IRL has attracted several researchers in the communities of artificial intelligence, psychology, control theory, and machine learning. IRL is appealing because of its poterntial to use data recorded in a task to build autonomous agents capable of modeling others without intervening in the performance of the task.
We study this problem and associated advances in a structured way to address the needs of readers with different levels of familiarity with the field. For clarity, we use a contemporary example to illustrate IRL’s use and associated challenges. Consider a selfdriving car in role B in Fig. 1. To safely merge into a congested freeway, it may model the behavior of the car in role A; this car forms the immediate traffic. We may use previously collected trajectories of cars in role B, on freeway entry ramps, to learn the safety and speed preferences of a typical driver as she approaches this difficult merge (NGSIM NGSIM is one such existing data set).
Approaches for IRL predominantly ascribe a Markov decision process (MDP) Puterman1994 to the interaction of the observed agent with its environment, and whose solution is a policy that maps states to actions. The reward function of this MDP is unknown, and the observed agent is assumed to follow an optimal policy for the MDP. In the traffic merge example, the MDP represents the driving process of car A. The driver of Car A is following action choices (deceleration, braking, low acceleration, and others) based on its optimal policy. Car B needs to reach the end of merging lane before or after Car A for merging safely.
1.1 Significance of IRL
Researchers in the areas of machine learning and artificial intelligence have developed a substantial interest in IRL because it caters to the following needs.
1.1.1 Demonstration substitutes manual specification of reward
Typically, if a designer wants intelligent behavior in an agent, she manually formulates the problem as a forward learning or forward control task solvable using solution techniques in RL, optimal control, or predictive control. A key element of this formulation is a specification of the agent’s preferences and goals via a reward function. In the traffic merge example, we may hand design a reward function for Car A. For example, +1 reward if taking an action in a state decreases the relative velocity of Car B w.r.t. Car A within a predefined distance from merging junction, thereby allowing for a safe merge. Analogously, a negative reward of 1 if taking an action in a state increases the relative velocity of Car B w.r.t. Car A. This example specification captures one aspect of a successful merge into a congested freeway: that the merging car must slow down to match the speed of the freeway traffic. However, other aspects such as merging a safe distance behind Car A and not too close in front of the car behind A require further tuning of the reward function. While roughly specified reward functions are sufficient in many domains to obtain expected behavior (indeed affine transformations of the true reward function are sufficient), others require much trialanderror or a delicate balance of multiple conflicting attributes Coates2009, which becomes cumbersome.
The need to prespecify the reward function limits the applicability of RL and optimal control to problems where a reward function can be easily specified or simulated. IRL offers a way to broaden the applicability of RL and reduce the manual design of task specification, given a policy or demonstration of desired behavior is available. While acquiring the complete desired policy is usually infeasible, we have easier access to demonstrations of behaviors, often in the form of recorded data. For example, state to action mappings for all contingencies for Car B are not typically available, but datasets such as NGSIM contain trajectories of Cars A and B in realworld driving. Thus, IRL forms a key method for learning from demonstration argall2009survey.
A topic in control theory related to IRL is inverse optimal control Boyd94. While the input in both IRL and inverse optimal control (IOC) are trajectories consisting of stateaction pairs, the target of learning in the IOC is a function mapping states of observed agent to her actions. The learning agent may use this policy to imitate it or deliberate with it in its own decisionmaking process.
1.1.2 Improved Generalization
A reward function represents the preferences of an agent in a succinct form, and is amenable to transfer to another agent. The learned reward function may be used as is if the subject agent shares the same environment and goals as the other, otherwise it continues to provide a useful basis when the agent specifications differ mildly – for example, when the subject agent’s problem domain exhibits additional states. Indeed, as Russell Russell1998 points out, the reward function is inherently more transferable compared to the observed agent’s policy. This is because even slight changes in the environment – for example, changes to the noise levels in the transition function – likely renders the learned policy unusable because it may not be directly revised in straightforward ways. However, this change does not impact the transferability of the reward function. Furthermore, it is likely that the learned reward function simply needs to be extended to any new states in the learner’s environment while a learned policy would be discarded if the new states are significant.
1.1.3 Potential Applications
While introducing IRL, Russell Russell1998 alluded to its potential application in providing computational models of human and animal behavior because these are difficult to specify. In this regard, Baker et al. Baker2009_action and Ullman et al. Ullman2009 demonstrate the inference of a human’s goal as an inverse planning problem in an MDP. Furthermore, IRL’s use toward apprenticeship learning has rapidly expanded the set of visible applications. These can be categorized into:

1.
Learning from an expert to create an agent with the expert’s preferences. An early and wellknown application that brought significant attention to IRL is helicopter flight control Abbeel2007, illustrated in Fig. 2. In this application, an expert helicopter operator’s sophisticated preferences over 24 features were learned from recorded behavior data using IRL. This reward function was then used to teach a physical remotelycontrolled helicopter advanced maneuvers using RL. Another application that brought IRL closer to Russell’s Russell1998 motivation of modeling animal behavior is that of socially adaptive navigation to avoid colliding into humans by learning from humanwalk trajectories Kretzschmar_interactingpedestrians; Kim2016_adaptivenavigation. Other important examples include boat sailing Neu2007, learning driving styles Kuderer15:Learning, and so on;

2.
Learning from another agent to predict its behavior. One of the first attempts in this direction was route prediction for taxis Ziebart2008; Ziebart_Cabbie. Other such applications are footstep prediction for planning legged locomotion Ratliff2009, anticipation of pedestrian interactions Ziebart_predictionpedestrian, energy efficient driving Vogel_efficientdriving, and penetration of a perimeter patrol by learning the patrollers’ preferences and patrolling route Bogert_mIRL_Int_2014.
1.2 Importance of this Survey
This article is a reflection on the research area of IRL with a focus on the following important aspects:

1.
Formally introducing IRL and its importance, by means of various examples, to the researchers and practitioners new to the field;

2.
A study of the challenges that make IRL difficult, and a review of the current (partial) solutions;

3.
Qualitative assessment and comparisons among different methods to evaluate them coherently. This will considerably help the readers decide on the approach suitable for the problem at hand;

4.
Identification of key milestones achieved by the methods in this field along with their common shortcomings.

5.
Identification of the open avenues for future research.
Of course, a single article may not cover all methods in this growing field. Nevertheless, we have sought to make this survey as comprehensive as possible.
1.3 Organization of Contents
As IRL is relatively new and the target reader is likely to be someone who is keen to learn about IRL, the viewpoint of ‘IRL as a research problem’ is used to guide the organization of this article. Therefore, Section 2 mathematically defines the IRL problem and provides some preliminary technical background that is referenced in later sections. We introduce the core challenges faced by this learning problem in Section 3. These challenges confront all methods and are not specific to any particular technique. Then, we briefly review the foundational methods grouped together by the commonality of their underlying approach in Section 4 that have facilitated progress in IRL, and how these methods mitigate the previouslyintroduced core challenges in Section 5. This separation of method description across two sections allows a practitioner to quickly identify the methods pertinent to the most egregious challenge she is facing in her IRL problem. This is followed in Section 6 by a review of efforts that generalize or extend the fundamental IRL problem in various directions. Section 7 summarizes the few significant milestones achieved so far and the shortcomings of the existing methods. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of some open research questions.
2 Formal Definition of IRL
In order to formally define IRL, we must first decide on a framework for modeling the observed agent’s behavior. While methods ascribe different frameworks such as an MDP, hiddenparameter MDP, or a POMDP to the expert, we focus on the most popular model by far, which is the MDP.
Definition 0.
[MDP] An MDP $\mathcal{M}:=\u27e8S,A,T,R,\gamma \u27e9$ models an agent’s sequential decisionmaking process. $S$ is a finite set of states and $A$ is a set of actions. Mapping $T:S\times A\to \text{\U0001d5af\U0001d5cb\U0001d5c8\U0001d5bb}(S)$ defines a probability distribution over the set of next states conditioned on agent taking action $a$ at state $s$; $\text{\U0001d5af\U0001d5cb\U0001d5c8\U0001d5bb}(S)$ here denotes the set of all probability distributions over $S$. $T({s}^{\prime}s,a)\in [0,1]$ is the probability that the system transitions to state ${s}^{\prime}$. The reward function $R$ can be specified in different ways: $R:S\to \mathbb{R}$ gives the scalar reinforcement at state $s$, $R:S\times A\to \mathbb{R}$ maps a tuple (state $s$, action $a$ taken in state $s$) to the reward received on performing the action, and, $R:S\times A\times S\to \mathbb{R}$ maps a triplet (state $s$, action $a$, resultant state ${s}^{\prime}$) to the reward obtained on performing the transition. Discount factor $\gamma $ is the weight for past rewards accumulated in a trajectory, $\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),\mathrm{\dots}$ $({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9$, where ${s}_{j}\in S,{a}_{j}\in A,j\in \mathbb{N}$.
A policy is a function mapping current state to next action choice(s). It can be deterministic, $\pi :S\to A$ or stochastic $\pi :S\to \text{\U0001d5af\U0001d5cb\U0001d5c8\U0001d5bb}(A)$. For a policy $\pi $, value function ${V}^{\pi}:S\to \mathbb{R}$ gives the value of a state $s$ as the longterm expected cumulative reward incurred from the state by following $\pi $. The value of a policy $\pi $ for a given start state ${s}_{0}$ is,
$${V}^{\pi}({s}_{0})={E}_{s,\pi (s)}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\gamma}^{t}R({s}_{t},\pi ({s}_{t})){s}_{0}\right]$$  (1) 
The goal of solving MDP $\mathcal{M}$ is to find an optimal policy ${\pi}^{*}$ such that ${V}^{{\pi}^{*}}(s)={V}^{*}(s)=\underset{\mathit{\pi}}{sup}{V}^{\pi}(s)$, for all $s\in S$. The actionvalue function for $\pi $, ${Q}^{\pi}:S\times A\to \mathbb{R}$, maps a stateaction pair to the longterm expected cumulative reward incurred after taking action $a$ from $s$ and following policy $\pi $ thereafter. We also define the optimal actionvalue function as ${Q}^{*}(s,a)={sup}_{\pi}{Q}^{\pi}(s,a)$. Subsequently, ${V}^{*}(s)={sup}_{a\in A}{Q}^{*}(s,a)$. Another perspective to the value function involves multiplying the reward with the converged statevisitation frequency ${\psi}^{\pi}(s)$, which is the number of times the state s is visited on using policy $\pi $. The latter is given by:
${\psi}^{\pi}(s)={\psi}^{0}(s)+\gamma {\displaystyle \sum _{{s}^{\prime}\in S}}T(s,\pi (s),{s}^{\prime}){\psi}^{\pi}({s}^{\prime})$  (2) 
where ${\psi}^{0}(s)$ is initialized as 0 for all states. Let $\mathrm{\Psi}$ be the space of all $\psi $ functions. Iterating the above until the statevisitation frequency stops changing yields the converged frequency function, ${\psi}_{*}^{\pi}$. We may write the value function as, ${V}^{*}(s)=\underset{\mathit{\pi}}{sup}{\sum}_{s\in S}{\psi}_{*}^{\pi}(s)R(s,\pi (s))$.
We may express the reward function as a linear sum of weighted features:
$R(s,a)$  $={w}_{1}{\varphi}_{1}(s,a)+{w}_{2}{\varphi}_{2}(s,a)+\mathrm{\dots}+{w}_{k}{\varphi}_{k}(s,a)$  
$={w}^{T}\mathit{\varphi}(s,a).$  (3) 
where ${\varphi}_{k}:S\to \mathbb{R}$ is a feature function and weight ${w}_{k}\in \mathbb{R}$. Then, define the expected feature count for policy $\pi $ and feature ${\varphi}_{k}$ as,
${\mu}^{{\varphi}_{k}}(\pi )={\displaystyle \sum _{t=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}}}{\psi}^{\pi}({s}_{t}){\varphi}_{k}({s}_{t},\pi ({s}_{t})).$  (4) 
We will extensively refer to this formulation of the reward function and the expected feature count later in this article. Note that ${\mu}^{{\varphi}_{k}}(\pi )$ is also called a successor feature in RL. The expected feature count can be used to define the expected value of a policy:
${V}^{\pi}$  $={\bm{w}}^{T}{\bm{\mu}}^{\varphi}(\pi )={\displaystyle \sum _{s,a}}{\psi}^{\pi}(s){\bm{w}}^{T}\mathit{\varphi}(s,a)$  
$={\displaystyle \sum _{s,a}}{\psi}^{\pi}(s)R(s,a).$  (5) 
RL offers an online way to solve an MDP. The input for RL is the sequence of sampled experiences in the form $(s,a,r)$ or $(s,a,r,{s}^{\prime})$, which includes the reward or reinforcement due to the agent performing action $a$ in state $s$. For the modelfree setting of RL, the transition function $T$ is unknown. Both the transition function and policy are estimated from the samples and the target of RL is to learn an optimal policy.
We adopt the conventional terminology in IRL, referring to the observed agent as an expert and the subject agent as the learner. Typically, IRL assumes that the expert is behaving according to an underlying policy ${\pi}_{E}$, which may not be known. If policy is not known, the learner observes sequences of the expert’s stateaction pairs called trajectories. The reward function is unknown but the learner usually assumes some structure that helps in the learning. Common functional forms include a linearlyweighted combination of reward features, a probability distribution over reward functions, or a neural network representation. We elaborate on these forms later in this article. The expert’s transition function may not be known to the learner. We are now ready to give the formal problem definition of IRL.
Definition 0 (IRL).
Let an MDP without reward, $\mathcal{M}{\backslash}_{{R}_{E}}$, represent the dynamics of the expert $E$. Let $\mathcal{D}=\{{\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),\mathrm{\dots},({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9}_{1},\mathrm{\dots},\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),$ ${\mathrm{\dots},({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9}_{i=2}^{N}\}$, ${s}_{j}\in S$, ${a}_{j}\in A$, and $i,j,N\in \mathbb{N}$ be the set of demonstrated trajectories. A trajectory in $\mathcal{D}$ is denoted as $\tau $. We assume that all $\tau \in \mathcal{D}$ are perfectly observed. Then, determine ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ that best explains either policy ${\pi}_{E}$ if given or the observed behavior in the form of demonstrated trajectories.
Notice that IRL inverts the RL problem. Whereas RL seeks to learn the optimal behavior based on experiences ($(s,a,r)$ or $(s,a,r,{s}^{\prime})$) that include obtained rewards, IRL seeks to best explain the observed behavior by learning the corresponding reward function. We illustrate this relationship between RL and IRL in Fig. 3
We may obtain an estimate of the expected feature count from a given demonstration $\mathcal{D}$, which is the empirical analog of that in Eq. 4,
$${\widehat{\mu}}^{{\varphi}_{k}}(\mathcal{D})=\frac{1}{N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{t=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}}{\gamma}^{t}{\varphi}_{k}({s}_{t},{a}_{t}).$$  (6) 
3 Primary Challenges of IRL
IRL is challenging because the optimization associated in finding a reward function that best explains observations is essentially illposed. Furthermore, computational costs of solving the problem tend to grow disproportionately with the size of the problem. We discuss these challenges in detail below, but prior to this discussion, we establish some notation. Let ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ be the policy obtained by optimally solving the MDP with reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$.
3.1 Difficulty of Accurate Inference
Classical IRL takes an expert demonstration of a task consisting of a finite set of trajectories, knowledge of the environment and expert’s dynamics, and finds the expert’s potential reward function; this is illustrated in Fig. 4.
A critical challenge, first noticed by Ng and Russell Ng2000, is that many reward functions (including highly degenerate ones such as a function with all reward values zero) could explain the observations. This is because the input is usually a finite and small set of trajectories (or a policy) and many reward functions in the set of all reward functions can generate policies that realize the observed demonstration. Thus, IRL suffers from an ambiguity in solution.
Given the difficulty of ensuring accurate inference, its pertinent to contemplate how we may measure accuracy. If the true reward function ${R}_{E}$ is available for purposes of evaluation, then one measure of accuracy is the closeness of a learned reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ to ${R}_{E}$, ${{R}_{E}{\widehat{R}}_{E}}_{p}$. However, a direct comparison of rewards is not useful because an MDP’s optimal policy is invariant under affine transformations of the reward function Russell03:Artificial. On the other hand, two reward functions similar for the most part but differing for some stateaction pairs may produce considerably different policies and behaviors. To make the evaluation targeted, a comparison of the behavior generated from the learned reward function with the true behavior of expert is more appropriate. In other words, we may compare the policy ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ generated from MDP with ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ with the true policy ${\pi}_{E}$. The latter could be given or is generated using the true reward function. A limitation of this measure of accuracy is that a difference between the two policies in just one state could still have a significant impact. This is because performing the correct action at that state may be crucial to realizing the task. Consequently, this measure of closeness is inadequate because it would report just a small difference despite the high significance.
This brings us to the conclusion that we should measure the difference in values of the learned and true policies. Specifically, we may measure the error in inverse learning, called inverse learning error (ILE), as ${{V}^{{\pi}_{E}}{V}^{{\widehat{\pi}}_{E}}}_{p}$ where ${V}^{{\pi}_{E}}$ is the value function for actual policy ${\pi}_{E}$ and ${V}^{{\widehat{\pi}}_{E}}$ is that for the learned policy ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ both obtained using the true reward function Choi2011. Notice that if the true and learned policies are the same, then ILE is zero. However, ILE may also vanish when the two differ if both policies are optimal. On the other hand, ILE requires knowing the true reward function which limits its use to formative evaluations. Another assessment measures the learned behavior accuracy. This metric is computed as the number of demonstrated stateaction pairs that match between using the true and learned policies expressed as a percentage of the former.
3.2 Generalizability
Generalization refers to the extrapolation of learned information to the states and actions unobserved in the demonstration and to starting the task at different initial states. Observed trajectories typically encompass a subset of the state space and the actions performed from those states. Wellgeneralized reward functions should reflect expert’s overall preferences relevant to the task. The challenge is to generalize correctly to the unobserved space using data that often covers a fraction of the complete space.
Notice that achieving generalizability promotes the temptation of training the learner using fewer examples because the latter now possesses the ability to extrapolate. However, less data may contribute to greater approximation error in ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ and inaccurate inference.
ILE continues to be pertinent by offering a way to measure the generalizability of the learned information as well. This is because it compares value functions, which are defined over all states. Another procedure for evaluating generalizability is to simply withhold a few of the demonstration trajectories from the learner. These can be used as labeled test data for comparing with the output of the learned policy on the undemonstrated stateaction pairs.
3.3 Sensitivity to Correctness of Prior Knowledge
If we represent the reward function, ${R}_{E}$, as a weighted combination of feature functions, the problem then reduces to finding the values of the weights. Each feature function, $\varphi :S\times A\to \mathbb{R}$, is given and is intended to model a facet of the expert’s preferences.
Prior knowledge enters IRL via the specification of feature functions in ${R}_{E}$ and the transition function in the MDP ascribed to the expert. Consequently, the accuracy of IRL is sensitive to the selection of feature functions that not only encompass the various facets of the expert’s true reward function but also differentiate the facets. Indeed, Neu et al. Neu2007 prove that IRL’s accuracy is closely tied to the scaling of correct features. Furthermore, it is also dependent on how accurately are the dynamics of the expert modeled by the ascribed MDP. If the dynamics are not deterministic, due to say some noise in the expert’s actuators, the corresponding stochasticity needs to be precisely modeled in the transitions.
Given the significant role of prior knowledge in IRL, the challenge is twofold: $(i)$ we must ensure its accuracy, but this is often difficult to achieve in practice; $(ii)$ we must reduce the sensitivity of solution methods to the correctness of prior knowledge or replace the knowledge with learned information.
3.4 Disproportionate Growth in Solution Complexity with Problem Size
Methods for IRL are iterative as they involve a constrained search through the space of reward functions. As the number of iterations may vary based on whether the optimization is convex, it is linear, the gradient can be computed quickly, or none of these, we focus on analyzing the complexity of each iteration. Consequently, the computational complexity is expressed as the time complexity of each iteration and its space complexity.
Each iteration’s time is dominated by the complexity of solving the ascribed MDP using the reward function currently learned. While the complexity of solving an MDP is polynomial in the size of its parameters, the parameters such as the state space are impacted by the curse of dimensionality – its size is exponential in the number of components of state vector (dimensions). Furthermore, the state space in domains such as robotics is often continuous and an effective discretization also leads to an exponential blowup in the number of discrete states. Therefore, increasing problem size adversely impacts the run time of each iteration of IRL methods.
Another type of complexity affecting IRL is sample complexity, which refers to the number of trajectories present in the input demonstration. As the problem size increases, the expert must demonstrate more trajectories in order to maintain the required level of coverage in the training data.
3.5 Direct Learning of Reward or Policy Matching
Two distinct approaches to IRL present themselves, each with its own attendant set of challenges. First seeks to directly approximate the reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ by tuning it using input data. The second approach focuses on learning a policy that matches its actions or action values with the demonstrated behavior, thereby learning the reward function as an intermediate step.
Success of the first approach hinges on selecting an adequate and complete reward structure (for example, the set of feature functions) that composes the reward function. Though learning a reward function offers a deeper generalization of the task at hand, it may lead to policies that do not fully reproduce the observed trajectories. For the second approach, Neu et al. Neu2008 point out that the optimization for IRL is convex if the actions are deterministic and the demonstration spans the complete state space. While both approaches are negatively impacted by reduced data, matching the observed policy is particularly sensitive to missing states in the demonstration, which makes the problem nonconvex and weakens the objective of matching the given (but now partial) policy.
Next section categorizes the foundational methods in IRL based on the mathematical framework they use for learning, and discusses them in some detail.
4 Foundational Methods for IRL
Many IRL methods fit a template of key steps. We show this template in Algorithm 1, and present the methods in the context of this template. Such presentation allows us to compare and contrast various methods. Algorithm 1 assumes that the expert’s MDP sans the reward function is known to the learner as is commonly assumed in most IRL methods although a few methods discussed later allow the transition function to be unknown. Either a demonstration or the expert’s policy is provided as input as well as any features for the reward function.
Existing methods seek to learn the expert’s preferences, a reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$, represented in different forms such as a linear combination of weighted feature functions, a probability distribution over multiple realvalued maps from states to reward values, and others. Parameters of ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ vary with the type of representation (weights, parameters defining the shape of distribution). IRL involves solving the MDP with the function hypothesized in current iteration and updating the parameters, constituting a search that terminates when the behavior derived from the current solution aligns with the observed behavior.
Rest of this section categorizes IRL methods based on the core idea they use for inverse learning – margin based optimization, entropy based optimization, Bayesian inference, regression, classification, and all others. A secondlevel grouping within each of these categories clusters methods based on the common technique utilized in realizing the core idea.
4.1 Maximum Margin Optimization
Maximum margin prediction aims to learn a reward function that explains the demonstrated policy better than alternative policies by a margin. The methods under this category aim to address IRL’s solution ambiguity (discussed in Section 3.1) by deciding on a solution that maximizes a margin from others.
4.1.1 Linear and nonlinear programming
An early and foundational method for IRL is Ng and Russell’s Ng2000, which takes in the expert’s policy as input. It formulates a linear program to retrieve the reward function that not only produces the given policy as optimal output from the complete MDP, but also maximizes the sum of differences between the value of the optimal action and that of the nextbest action for every state. In addition to maximizing this margin, it also prefers reward functions with smaller values as a form of regularization.
For nondiscrete state spaces, the constraints defined for each discrete state must be generalized to the continuous state space, or we may sample a large subset of the state space and restrict the constraints to these sampled states only.
Under the assumption that each trajectory in the demonstration reflects a distinct policy, Ratliff et al.’s Ratliff2006 maximum margin planning (MMP) associates each trajectory $\tau \in \mathcal{D}$ with an MDP. While these MDPs could differ in their state and action sets, and the transition functions, they share the same reward function. MMP and most recent methods express the reward function as a linear and weighted sum of basis functions as shown in Eq. 3. MMP’s loss function quantifies the closeness between the learned and demonstrated behaviors by utilizing the state visitation frequency $\psi $ as defined in Eq. 2 and a loss vector ${l}_{i}$ that defines the learner’s loss due to mismatch in state visitation frequencies between the demonstrated and currently learned behaviors:
$$\mathcal{L}(\psi ,{\psi}_{i})={l}_{i}^{T}\psi .$$  (7) 
The reward weight vector is obtained by solving a quadratic program that is constrained to have a positive margin between the expected value of the policy from the observed behavior and the expected values of all other policies combined with the loss function of Eq. 7. The former is obtained by multiplying the empirical state visitation frequency from the observed trajectory with the weighted feature function values $\mathit{\varphi}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\cdot}\mathbf{)}$ obtained using the trajectory. The solution is the weight vector that makes the expected value of the optimal policy to be closest to the expected value of the observed policy, for each of the MDPs.
Ratliff et al. Ratliff2009 improves on MMP in a subsequent method called learn to search (learch). Figure 5 explains how an iteration of learch increases the cost (decreases the reward) for the actions that cause deviation between the learned and demonstrated behaviors. For optimization, learch uses an exponentiated functional gradient descent in the space of reward functions (represented as cost maps). One of the techniques in learch comprises the mechanism introduced by Silver et al. Silver2008 to handle suboptimal or infeasible demonstrations.
4.1.2 Apprenticeship learning
Two methods Abbeel2004 under this general label also perform maximum margin optimization but in a different way. Noting that the learner does not typically have access to the expert’s policy, maxmargin and projection take a demonstration (defined in Def. 2) as input. Both methods continue to represent the reward function as a linear, weighted sum of feature functions.
These methods seek a reward function that minimizes the margin between the feature expectations of a policy computed by the learner (Eq. 4) and the empirically computed feature expectations from the expert’s trajectory (Eq. 6); we refer to this margin as the value loss. Both methods iteratively tune weight vector $\bm{w}$ by computing a policy as an intermediate hypothesis at each step and using it to obtain intermediate feature counts. These counts are compared with the empirical feature counts ${\widehat{\mu}}^{\varphi}({\pi}_{E})$ of expert, as shown in Fig. 6 and the weights are updated. Abbeel and Ng Abbeel2004 point out that the performance of these methods is contingent on matching the feature expectations, which may not yield an accurate ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ because feature expectations are based on the policy. An advantage of these methods is that their sample complexity depends on the number of features and not on the complexity of expert’s policy or the size of the state space.
A variant of the projection method described above is Syed et al’s. multiplicative weights for apprenticeship learning (mwal) Syed2008. The initial model and input are the same in both methods. However, mwal presents a learner as a max player choosing a policy and its environment as an adversary selecting a reward hypothesis. This formulation transforms the valueloss objective in the projection method to a minimax objective for a zerosum game between the learner and its environment, with weights $\bm{w}$ as output.
An alternative to minimizing the valueloss in the projection method is to minimize the probability difference between stochastic policies ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}(as)$  ${\pi}_{E}(as)$ for each state. Viewing a policy as a Boltzmann function of the actionvalue, Neu and Szepesvari Neu2007 present hybridIRL as a gradient descent method that searches the space of reward hypotheses. As the behavior of expert is available instead of its policy, the difference above is computed using the empirically computed frequencies of the visitations of each state (Eq. 2) and the frequencies of taking specific actions in that state as given by the hypothesized policy.
4.2 Entropy Optimization
IRL is essentially an illposed problem because multiple reward functions can explain the expert’s behavior. The maximum margin approaches of Section 4.1 introduce a bias into the learned reward function. Thus, multiple methods take recourse to the maximum entropy principle Jaynes_MaxEnt to obtain a distribution over potential reward functions while avoiding any bias. The distribution that maximizes entropy makes minimal commitments beyond the constraints and is least wrong.
4.2.1 Maximum entropy IRL
Ziebart et al.’s maximum entropy IRL (maxentirl) Ziebart2008 recovers a distribution over all trajectories $Pr(\tau )$, which has the maximum entropy among all such distributions under the constraint that feature expectations of learned policy match that of demonstrated behavior. Mathematically, this problem can be formulated as a convex, nonlinear optimization:
$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta}}{\mathrm{max}}\left({\displaystyle \sum _{\tau \in \mathcal{D}}}Pr\left(\tau \right)\mathrm{log}Pr\left(\tau \right)\right)$  
$\mathbf{\text{subject to}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\tau \in \mathcal{D}}}Pr\left(\tau \right)=1$  
$\sum _{\tau \in \mathcal{D}}}Pr\left(\tau \right){\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}}{\gamma}^{t}{\varphi}_{k}({s}_{t},{a}_{t})={\widehat{\mu}}^{{\varphi}_{k}}\left(\tau \right)\mathit{\hspace{1em}\hspace{0.5em}\hspace{1em}}\forall k$  (8) 
where $\mathrm{\Delta}$ is the space of all possible distributions $Pr(\tau )$. Lagrangian relaxation allows us to bring both constraints into the objective function and the dual is solved to obtain the reward weight vector $\bm{w}$ by utilizing exponentiated gradient descent.
Extending this maximum entropy IRL to a nonlinear reward function, Wulfmeier et al. Wulfmeier2015 point out that the difference in the feature expectations can be used as an error signal or loss function for backpropagation in a neural network approximation of the reward function.
A disadvantage of the trajectorybased formulation of (8) is that it becomes intractable for long trajectories because the space of trajectories grows exponentially with the length. A related method Boularias2012 formulates the problem as one of finding a distribution over the space of deterministic policies $\mathrm{\Pi}$, which has the maximum entropy. In other words, this method maximizes $\sum _{\pi \in \mathrm{\Pi}}Pr(\pi )logPr(\pi )$ over the space of distributions of policies while matching the convex combination of feature expectations from all policies with those from the observed expert’s trajectory.
Due to the constraint of matching feature expectations, the process is equivalent to maximizing the likelihood of expert’s behavior under the maximum entropy distribution. The set of deterministic policies has size $\mathcal{O}({A}^{S})$, which is independent of the length and number of demonstrated trajectories, but it could get considerably large with increase in the size of the state space.
Applications may exhibit structure that most neighboring states have similar optimal actions. To exploit this information, Boularias et al. Boularias2012 introduced special features in the constraints to make the distribution favor policies for which neighboring states have similar optimal actions. This method called structured apprenticeship learning results in a Markov random field like distribution (see Fig. 7).
4.2.2 Relative entropy IRL
Entropy optimization is also useful when the transition dynamics are not known. In reirl Boularias2011relative, the relative entropy (known as KullbachLeibler divergence Kullback68informationtheory) between two distributions on trajectories is minimized and the corresponding reward function is obtained.
From the space of all possible distributions, learner chooses an arbitrary distribution on trajectories with feature expectations within predetermined closeness to true empirical feature expectations of the demonstration. Using a given baseline policy ${\pi}_{b}$, learner empirically computes another distribution by sampling trajectories. reirl then learns the reward function by minimizing the relative entropy between these two probability distributions. Notably, the input behavior need not be optimal for the method. An analytical solution of this optimization problem requires a known transition function. To estimate the latter, the learner uses importance sampling.
Recently, Finn et al. Finn_gcl extend the above sample based estimation approach (Guided cost learning, gcl) to modelfree maximum entropy optimization by allowing a neural network to represent the reward function Wulfmeier2015. Replacing an uninformed baseline policy that effectively leads to a uniform distribution over trajectories, sample generation is guided by policy optimization that uses the current reward hypothesis to update the baseline policy which in turn guides the sample generation. In this way, RL is interleaved with IRL to generate more trajectories that are supported by a larger reward in the reward function.
4.3 Bayesian Update
An important class of methods treat the stateaction pairs in a trajectory as observations that facilitate a Bayesian update of a prior distribution over candidate reward functions. This approach yields a different but principled way for IRL that has spawned various improvements.
4.3.1 Bayesian IRL
A posterior distribution over candidate reward functions is obtained using the following Bayesian update:
$$P({\widehat{R}}_{E}\tau )\propto P(\tau {\widehat{R}}_{E})P({\widehat{R}}_{E})\forall \tau .$$  (9) 
where $P(\tau {\widehat{R}}_{E})=$ ${\prod}_{\u27e8s,a\u27e9\in \tau}Pr(\u27e8s,a\u27e9{\widehat{R}}_{E})$.
Ramachandran and Amir Ramachandran2007 define the likelihood $P(\u27e8s,a\u27e9{\widehat{R}}_{E})$ as a logit distribution of the Qvalue of the stateaction pair:
$$P(\u27e8s,a\u27e9{\widehat{R}}_{E})\propto {e}^{\left(\frac{{Q}^{*}(s,a;{\widehat{R}}_{E})}{\beta}\right)}$$  (10) 
where $\beta $ controls the randomness in action selection (lower the $\beta $, more exploratory is the action). Given a candidate reward hypothesis, some stateaction pairs are more likely than others as given by the likelihood function. As the space of reward functions is continuous, Ramachandran and Amir present a random walk algorithm (birl) for implementing the update and obtain a sampled approximation of the posterior in Eq. 9. Notice that Eq. 10 requires the Qvalue function of the MDP completed using each ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$. In this regard, Francisco et al. S.Melo2010 utilize bisimulation Castro09:Equivalence to measure the closeness of two MDPs in order to avoid solving an MDP that is similar to a previously solved one.
An extension of this method measures the statespecific entropy of the posterior over the reward functions Lopes2009. The method defines a set $\{{\widehat{R}}_{E}(p)\}$ of reward functions such that for a given stateaction pair under a reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$, ${\pi}_{E}(s,a;{\widehat{R}}_{E})=p$. The posterior distribution over rewards induces a distribution over intervals of probability $p$: ${I}_{k}\in [0,1]$ where ${I}_{k}=(\frac{k}{K},\frac{k+1}{K}],k\in \{0,1,\mathrm{\dots}(K1)\}$. Statebased entropy is then computed as the entropy of this distribution for some state and averaged over all actions.
In an instance of introducing active learning to IRL, the learner in the above method can query the expert for sample demonstrations in states exhibiting high entropy with the aim of learning a posterior that is well informed at all states. Prior knowledge about the structural similarities between states improves the effectiveness of this approach.
4.3.2 Bayesian nonparametrics
Michini et al. Michini_CRPBNIRL1; Michini_CRPBNIRL2 introduce crpbnirl (Chinese restaurant process Bayesian nonparametric IRL), which is a straightforward application of nonparametric clustering by letting a Chinese Restaurant process partition a trajectory into as many subtrajectories as needed and by using Bayesian inference to assign a reward function to each subtrajectory to best fit the observed data. Subtrajectories are presumed to represent subtasks with their own subgoals. However, large state spaces and long trajectories make obtaining the demonstrationlikelihood computationally intensive. Interestingly, the authors use realtime dynamic programming and action comparison with existing closedloop controllers to avoid discretizing the state and action spaces.
4.4 Classification and Regression
Classical machine learning techniques such as classification and regression have also played a significant role in IRL. However, these methods are challenged by the fact that IRL is not a straightforward supervised learning problem. Nevertheless, the methods below show that IRL can be cast into this framework.
4.4.1 Multilabel classification
Klein et al. Klein2012structured views IRL as a multilabel classification problem (scirl) in which the demonstration is utilized for training, and the stateaction pairs are datalabel pairs. The scoring function of the classifier is the actionvalue function ${Q}^{{\pi}_{E}}(s,a)$, which is obtained using feature expectations, ${Q}^{\pi}(s,a)={\sum}_{k=1}^{K}{w}_{k}{\mu}^{{\varphi}_{k}}(\pi )(s,a)$ (see Eq. 4). Thus, the weight vector $\bm{w}$ becomes the shared parameter between the Q and reward functions. A multilabel classification algorithm computes the solution by inferring a weight vector that minimizes the classification error.
An extension of the above method, called csi Klein_CSI, estimates the transition probabilities in the computation of the Qfunction if they are unknown. csi utilizes standard regression on a simulated demonstration dataset to estimate the transition model and thereafter learn the reward function.
4.4.2 Feature construction using regression
A unique effort to automatically learn the feature functions Levine2010_featureconstruction begins with primitive binary feature functions that form components of the final features used in the reward function. We may use a logical conjunction of the primitive binary features. Starting with an empty set of features, the method labeled firl iteratively updates reward hypothesis ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ and adds hypothesized feature functions ${\varphi}^{H}$ to it. The search involves building a minimal regression tree on the state space that encodes the conjunctions, resulting in new binary feature functions which make ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ consistent with demonstrated behavior.
4.5 Other Miscellaneous Techniques
We briefly review a few other IRL methods that do not fall in the broad categories discussed previously.
Gaussian Process IRL (gpirl) uses a Gaussian process to approximate ${R}_{E}$ as a nonlinear function of base features $\varphi $, ${R}_{E}=f(\varphi )$ Levine2011. Rather than learning a single reward function, a reward hypothesis here is the mean of a parametric Gaussian posterior over possible rewards. The method maximizes the likelihood of the actions in the demonstration in order to compute the mean.
Rather than obtain the maximumaposteriori estimate of the expert’s reward function obtained from Bayesian learning (as by methods in Section 4.3), Vroman et al. BabesVroman2011 choose a reward function that leads to the maximum likelihood estimate. In mlirl, the formulation of the maximum likelihood estimate is analogous to the posterior in Bayesian learning. However, this method remains challenged by degeneracy and illposedness of the IRL problem.
Syed et al. SyedLPAL2008 presents a linear program for imitating the expert’s policy, which scales to MDPs with larger state spaces and many basis feature functions. BabesVroman et al. BabesVroman2011 takes the dual of this linear program to allow reward learning in the method (calling it lpirl) while keeping its computational benefits intact.
Kalakrishnan et al. Kalakrishnan_continousspace and Aghasadeghi
et al. Aghasadeghi_continousspace each introduced path
integral Theodorou_pathintegral based approaches to learn
continuousstate continuousaction reward functions by sampling a
local region around each demonstrated trajectory. The two methods
differ only in how the sample set from the trajectory spaces is
obtained for approximating the reward function. Neither approach
considers the trajectories that deviate from the demonstration and
thereby incur significant control input. The techniques apply to
highdimensional problems due to the assumed local optimality of
demonstration.
In this section, we briefly described the foundational IRL methods. Table LABEL:tbl:Summary_OriginalMethods in the Appendix succinctly lists all the methods along with the parameters that need to be learned and the divergence metric that is minimized by each method. This facilitates a convenient comparison across the techniques and helps in aligning the methods with the template given in Algorithm 1.
5 Mitigating Challenges
This section elaborates how the methods reviewed in previous section mitigate the various challenges introduced in Section 3. This will help the reader make an informed choice about the method that may address the challenges in her domain. In addition, we also note techniques that purposefully extend some of the foundational methods to address a specific challenge.
5.1 Improving the Accuracy of IRL
IRL’s accuracy depends on several aspects of the learning process. Most existing methods aim at ensuring that the input is accurate, reducing the ambiguity among solutions, improving feature selection, and offering algorithmic performance guarantees.
5.1.1 Learning from Faulty Input
Suboptimal actions characterize a perturbed demonstration. Some methods such as reirl stay robust to perturbations whereas other IRL methods may learn inaccurate feature weights Abbeel2007 or predict the action poorly Ratliff2006. Methods such as maxentirl, birl, mlirl, and gpirl use probabilistic frameworks to account for the perturbation. For example, mlirl allows tuning of its model parameter $\beta $ in Eq. 10 to allow more randomness into the learned policy ${\pi}_{E}$ when the demonstrated behavior is expected to be noisy and suboptimal BabesVroman2011. On the other hand, methods such as mmp and learch introduce slack variables in their optimization objective for this purpose. Using the application of helicopter flight control, Ziebart et al. ZiebartBD_compare_MMP show that the robustness of maxentirl against an imperfect demonstration is better than that of mmp.
To specifically address noisy input, Coates et al. Coates2008 introduce a modelbased technique of trajectory learning that denoises the noisy demonstration by learning a generative trajectory model and then utilizing it to produce noisefree trajectories. Apprenticeship learning is subsequently applied to the resultant noisefree but unobserved trajectories Coates2009. As an instance of learning from suboptimal input, Shiarlis et al. Shiarlis_2016_failed performs IRL with demonstrations that fail to complete a task. Melo et al. Melo_perturbedinput focused on a formal analysis and characterization of the space of solutions for the case when some actions in a demonstration are not optimal (a perturbation in the distribution modeling the expert’s policy) and when demonstration does not include samples in all states.
A suboptimal demonstration may also be a trajectory with length much longer than desired. As we mentioned in Section 4.1, mmp converges to a solution by minimizing the cost of simulated trajectories diverging from the demonstrated ones. This divergence is computed by noting the difference in statevisitation frequencies of two trajectories. However, mmp attempts this minimization for a suboptimal demonstration as well, which can be avoided if the learning method distinguishes an unusually long demonstration from the optimal ones. Silver et al. Silver2008; Ratliff2009 specifically target this issue by implementing an mmpbased imitation learning approach that applies a functional gradient normalized by the statevisitation frequencies of a whole trajectory (see Fig. 8 for an illustration).
5.1.2 Ambiguity and Degeneracy of Reward Hypotheses
Various methods mitigate this challenge of ambiguity and degeneracy by better characterizing the space of solutions. This includes using heuristics and prior domain knowledge, and adding optimization constraints.
mmp and mwal avoid degenerate solutions by using heuristics that favor the learned value ${V}^{{\widehat{\pi}}_{E}}$ to be close to expert’s ${V}^{{\pi}_{E}}$. Specifically, mmp avoids degeneracy by using the loss function of Eq. 7 in the objective, which the degenerate ${\widehat{R}}_{E}=0$ can not minimize because the function is proportional to statevisitation frequencies Neu2008. hybridIRL avoids degeneracy in the same way as mmp, and makes the solution unique by preferring a reward function that corresponds to a stochastic policy ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ with action selection same as the expert’s (${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}(as)\approx {\pi}_{E}(as)$). Naturally, if no single nondegenerate solution makes the demonstration optimal, ambiguous output cannot be entirely avoided using these methods Ziebart2010.
Many methods embrace the ambiguity by modeling the uncertainty of the hypothesized rewards as a probability distribution over reward functions or that over the trajectories corresponding to the rewards. In this regard, maxentirl infers a single reward function by using a probabilistic framework that avoids any constraint other than making the valueloss zero, ${V}^{{\widehat{\pi}}_{E}}={V}^{{\pi}_{E}}$. On the other hand, the maximumaposteriori objective of Bayesian inference techniques and gpirl limit the probability mass of the posterior distribution to the specific subset of reward functions that supports the demonstrated behavior. This change in probability mass shapes the mean of the posterior, which is output by these methods. Active learning of the reward function uses the stateconditional entropy of the posterior to select the least informative states Lopes2009 and query for further information in those states. The selection mechanism builds on birl and reduces the ambiguity of the solution as compared to birl. In general, these methods add optimization constraints and exploit domain knowledge to distinguish between hypotheses.
5.1.3 Theoretically Guaranteed Accuracy
From a theoretical viewpoint, some methods have better performance guarantees than others. The maximum entropy probability distribution over space of policies (or trajectories) minimizes the worstcase expected loss Grunwald2004. Consequently, maxentirl learns a behavior which is neither much better nor much worse than the expert’s Dimitrakakis2012. However, the worstcase analysis may not represent the performance in practice because the performance of optimizationbased learning methods can be improved by exploiting favorable properties of the application domain. Classification based approaches such as csi and scirl admit a theoretical guarantee for the quality of ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ in terms of optimality of the learned behavior ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$, given that both classification and regression errors are small. Nevertheless, these methods may not reduce the loss as much as mwal as the latter is the only method, in our knowledge, which has no lower bound on the incurred valueloss Syed2008.
Some methods also analyze and bound the ILE metric for a given confidence of success and a given minimum number of demonstrations. The analysis relies on determining the value of a policy using feature expectations ${\mu}^{\varphi}(\pi )$ Abbeel2004; Ziebart2008; Choi2011 or state visitation frequencies ${\psi}^{\pi}(s)$ Neu2007; Ziebart2008; Ratliff2006; BabesVroman2011 as shown in Eq. 5.
For any method based on feature expectations or statevisitation frequencies, there exists a probabilistic upper bound on the bias in ${\widehat{V}}^{{\pi}_{E}}$ and thereby on ILE for a given minimum sample complexity Abbeel2004; Syed2008_supplement; Vroman2014. These bounds also apply to methods such as mmp, hybridirl, and maxentirl that use statevisitation frequency. Subsequently, each derived bound on bias can be used to analytically compute the maximum error in learning for a given minimum sample complexity Lee et al. Lee_Improved_Projection change the criterion (and thereby the direction) for updating the current solution in maxmargin and projection methods to formally prove an improvement in the accuracy of the solution as compared to that of the original method.
5.2 Generalizability
While early approaches such as apprenticeship learning required a demonstration that spanned all states, later approaches sought to explicitly learn a reward function that correctly represented expert’s preferences for unseen stateaction pairs, or one that is valid in an environment that mildly differs from the input. An added benefit is that such methods may need less demonstrations. gpirl can predict the reward for unseen states lying within the domains of the features for a Gaussian process. Furthermore, firl can use the learned reward function in an environment that is slightly different from the original environment used for demonstration but with base features similar to those in the original environment. Similarly, gcl admits an enhanced generalization by learning new instances of a previouslylearned task without repeated reward learning. birl with bisimulation achieves improved generalization by partitioning the state space based on a relaxed equivalence between states.
Munzer et al. Munzer_relationalIRL extend the classificationregression steps in csi to include relational learning in order to benefit from the strong generalization and transfer properties that are associated with relationallearning representations. The process shapes the reward function using the score function as computed by the classification (see Fig. 9 for more details).
5.3 Lowering Sensitivity to Prior Knowledge
In this section, we discuss techniques in the context of the challenge introduced in Section 3.3. Performance of the foundational methods such as projection, maxmargin, mmp, mwal, learch, and mlirl are all highly sensitive to the selection of features – a challenge pointed out in Section 3.3. While we are unaware of methods that explicitly seek to reduce their dependence on feature selection, some methods are less impacted by virtue of their approach. These include hybridIRL that uses policy matching and all maximum entropy based methods tune distributions over the policies or trajectories, which reduces the impact that feature selection has on the performance of IRL Neu2008.
Apart from selecting appropriate features, the size of the feature space influences the error in learned feature expectations for the methods that rely on ${\widehat{V}}^{{\pi}_{E}}$, e.g., projection, mmp, mwal, maxent, and irl. If a reward function is linear in the form of Eq. 3 and the magnitude of its $k$ features is bounded from the above, then the probable bound on the error scales linearly with $k$ Ziebart2008. However, maximum entropy based methods show an improvement in this aspect with $O(\mathrm{log}k)$ dependence.
5.4 Analysis and Reduction of Complexity
We discuss ways by which the various IRL methods reduce the time and space complexity of an iteration, and mitigate the input sample complexity.
While emphasis on reducing time and space complexity is generally lacking among IRL techniques, a small subset does seek to reduce the time complexity. An analysis of birl shows that computing the policy ${\pi}_{E}$ using the mean of the posterior distribution is computationally more efficient than the direct minimization of expected valueloss over the posterior Ramachandran2007. Specifically, the Markov chain with a uniform prior that approximates the Bayesian posterior converges in polynomial time. Performing birl via bisimulation, a method noted in Section 4.3, also exhibits low computational cost because it need not solve equivalent intermediate MDPs and the computation of the bisimulation metric over space $S$ occurs once regardless of the number of applications. Next, mwal requires $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{ln}k)$ ($k$ is number of features) iterations for convergence, which is lower than $\mathcal{O}(k\mathrm{ln}k)$ for the projection method. Although an iteration of firl is slower than both mmp and projection due to the computationally expensive step of regression, firl converges in fewer iterations as compared to latter.
Some optimization methods employ more affordable techniques of gradient computations. In contrast with the fixedpoint method in hybridirl, the approximation method in Active birl has a cost that is polynomial in the number of states. For maximum entropy based parameter estimation, gradientbased methods (e.g., BFGS fletcher1987practical) outperform iterative scaling approaches Malouf_ComparisonEstimatns.
Active birl offers a benefit over traditional birl by exhibiting reduced sample complexity. This is because it seeks to ascertain the most informative states where a demonstration is needed, and queries for it. Consequently, less demonstrations are needed and the method becomes more targeted. Of course, this efficiency exists at the computational expense of interacting with the expert. Modelfree reirl uses fewer samples (input trajectories) as compared to alternative methods including a modelfree variant of mmp Boularias2011relative. In a different direction, birl with bisimulation exploits any equivalence among the states to reduce the sample complexity, as shown in Fig. 10.
5.4.1 Continuous State Spaces
While most approaches for IRL target discrete state spaces, a group of prominent methods that operate on continuous state spaces are path integral based approaches, piirl. These aim for local optimality of demonstrations to avoid the complexity of full forward learning in continuous space. This approximation makes it scale well to highdimensional continuous spaces and large demonstration data. Although the performance of path integral algorithms is sensitive to the choice of samples in the demonstration, they show promising progress in scalability. Further, to avoid an expensive discretization in large continuous spaces, crpbnirl approximates the demonstration likelihood by comparing actions to an existing closedloop controller. Kretzschmar et al. Kretzschmar_interactingpedestrians apply maxentirl to learn the probability distribution over navigation trajectories of interacting pedestrians using a subset of their continuous space trajectories. A mixture distribution models both, the discrete as well as the continuous navigation decisions.
5.4.2 High Dimensional and Large Spaces
In IRL methods such as maxentirl and birl, the probability of choosing actions in demonstration $\tau \in \mathcal{D}$ is
$$P(\tau {\widehat{R}}_{E})=\frac{1}{Z}{e}^{\left(\sum _{t=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}}Q({s}^{t},{a}^{t};{\widehat{R}}_{E})\right)}.$$  (11) 
The complexity of computing the partition function $Z$ increases exponentially with the dimensionality of the state space, because it requires finding the complete policy under the current solution (${\widehat{R}}_{E}$) Ziebart2010.
Approaches for likelihood approximation in a highdimensional state space include the use of importance sampling by reirl, downscaling the state space using lowdimensional features Vernaza_highdimension_approximation, and the assumption by piirl that demonstrations are locally optimal. For optimizations involved in maximum entropy methods, limited memory variable metric optimization methods such as LBFGS are shown to perform better than other alternatives because they implicitly approximate the likelihood in the vicinity of the current solution Malouf_ComparisonEstimatns.
Instead of demonstrating complete trajectories for large tasks, a problem designer may decompose the task hierarchically. An expert may then easily give demonstrations at different levels of implementation. The modularity of this process significantly reduces the complexity of learning. For example, Kolter et al. Kolter_2007_HierarchicalAL apply such task decomposition toward learning quadruped locomotion by scaling IRL from low to highdimensional spaces. Likewise, Rothkopf et al. Rothkopf_modular_highDim utilize the independence between the components of a task – , each modeled using a stochastic reward function of its own – to introduce decomposition in birl. By decomposing a task into subtasks wherever possible, crpbnirl allows a parallelized precomputation of an approximate actionvalue function.
We may speed up forward learning by quickly computing the values of the intermediate policies learned in IRL. The linear program formulation of lpirl makes solving the MDP less expensive in large state spaces with many basis functions ($\varphi $ for ${R}_{E}={w}^{T}\varphi $). Similarly, csi and scirl do not need to solve MDPs repeatedly because they update the previous solution by exploiting the structure imposed on MDP by their classificationbased models. crpbnirl avoids repeated forward learning by limiting the computation to those states which improve the action values around the observations. The process depends on the size of the input demonstration only rather than that of the complete state space.
6 Extensions of Basic IRL
Having surveyed the foundational methods for IRL in Section 4 and discussed how they and other methods mitigate the various challenges in Section 5, we now discuss important ways in which the assumptions of the basic IRL problem have been relaxed to enable advances toward realworld applications.
6.1 Incomplete and Imperfect Observations
Learners in the real world must deal with noisy sensors and may not perceive the full demonstration trajectory. For example, the merging car B in our illustrative example of Fig. 1 described in Section 1 may not see car A in the merging lane until it comes into its sensor view. This is often complicated by the fact that car B’s sensor may be partially blocked by other cars in front of it, which further occludes car A. Additionally, the expert itself may possess noisy sensors and may not observe its own state perfectly.
6.1.1 Extended Definition
The property of incomplete and noisy observations by the learner modifies the traditional IRL problem and we provide a new definition below for completeness.
Definition 0 (IRL with imperfect perception).
Let $\mathcal{M}{\backslash}_{{R}_{E}}$ represent the dynamics of the expert $E$. Let the set of demonstrated trajectories be, $\mathcal{D}=\{{\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),\mathrm{\dots}({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9}_{i=1}^{N}\}$, ${s}_{j}\in Obs(S)$, ${a}_{j}\in Obs(A)$, $i,j,N\in \mathbb{N}$. Either some stateaction pairs of a trajectory, $\tau \in \mathcal{D}$, are not observed or some of the observed stateaction pairs could be different from the actual demonstrated ones. Thus, let $Obs(S)$ and $Obs(A)$ be the subsets of states and actions respectively that are observed. Then, determine ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ that best explains either given policy ${\pi}_{E}$ or the demonstrated trajectories.
Figure 11 revises the schematic for the traditional IRL shown in Fig. 3 to allow for incomplete and imperfect observations. Observing the trajectories imperfectly may require the learner to draw inferences about the unobserved stateaction pairs or the true ones from available information, which is challenging.
6.1.2 Methods
Bogert et al. Bogert_mIRL_Int_2014 introduce IRL* for settings where the learner is unable to see some stateaction pairs of the demonstrated trajectories due to occlusion. The maximum entropy formulation of Boularias et al. Boularias2012 is generalized to allow feature expectations that span the observable state space only. This method is applied to a new domain of multirobot patrolling as illustrated in Fig. 12.
The principle of latent maximum entropy Wang2002; Wang2012 allows us to extend the maximum entropy principle to problems with hidden variables. By using this extension, Bogert et al. Bogert_EM_hiddendata_fruit continued along the vein of incomplete observations and generalized maxentirl to the context where a dimension of the expert’s actions are hidden from the learner. For example, the amount of force applied by a human while picking ripe and unripe fruit usually differs but this would be hidden from an observing coworker robot. An expectationmaximization scheme is introduced with the Estep involving an expectation of the hidden variables while the Mstep performs the maxent optimization.
Taking the context of noisy observations, a hidden variable MDP incorporates the probability of learner’s noisy observation conditioned on the current state ($u$ in Fig. 13), as an additional feature ${\varphi}_{u}$ in the feature vector $\varphi $. Hidden variable inverse optimal control (hioc) hiddenMDP_Kitani2012 then modifies maxentirl to a problem where the dynamics are modeled by the hidden variable MDP with a linearlyweighted reward function. Consequently, the expression for the likelihood of expert’s behavior incorporates the additional feature and its weight (${\varphi}_{u},{w}_{u}$). The tuning of weights during optimization also adjusts ${w}_{u}$ to determine the reliability of the imperfect observations.
Choi and Kim Choi2011 take a different perspective involving an expert that senses its state imperfectly. The expert is modeled as a partially observable MDP (POMDP) Kaelbling_pomdp. The expert’s uncertainty about its current physical state is modeled as a belief (distribution) over its state space. The expert’s policy is then a mapping from its beliefs to optimal actions. The method pomdpirl makes either this policy available to the learner or the prior belief along with the sequence of expert’s observations and actions (that can be used to reconstruct the expert’s sequence of beliefs). The POMDP policy is represented as a finitestate machine whose nodes are the actions to perform on receiving observations that form the edge labels. The learner conducts a search through the space of reward functions as it gradually improves on the previous policy until the policy explains the observed behavior. Figure 14 illustrates this approach. However, a wellknown limitation of utilizing POMDPs is that the exact solution of a POMDP is PSPACEhard, which makes them difficult to scale to pragmatic settings.
In pomdpirl, the expert may not observe its state perfectly. However, IRL* and HIOC differ from this setup. They model the learner observing the expert’s state and action imperfectly whereas the expert is perfectly aware of its state.
6.2 Multiple Tasks
Human drivers often exhibit differing driving styles based on traffic conditions as they drive toward their destination. For example, the style of driving on the rightmost lane of a freeway is distinctly different prior to the joining of a merging lane, at joining of the lane, and post joining the lane. We may model such distinct behaviors of expert(s) as guided by differing reward functions. Consequently, there is a need to investigate methods that learn multiple reward functions simultaneously.
6.2.1 Extended Definition
To accommodate demonstrations involving multiple tasks, we revise the traditional IRL problem definition as given below.
Definition 0 (Multitask IRL).
Let the dynamics of the expert(s) be represented by $K$ MDPs each without the reward function where $K$ may not be known. Let the set of demonstrated trajectories be, $\mathcal{D}=\{{\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),\mathrm{\dots},({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9}_{i=1}^{N}\}$, ${s}_{j}\in S$, ${a}_{j}\in A$, $i,j,N\in \mathbb{N}$. Determine ${\widehat{R}}_{E}^{1}$, ${\widehat{R}}_{E}^{2}$, $\mathrm{\dots}$, ${\widehat{R}}_{E}^{K}$ that best explain the observed behavior.
Figure 15 gives the schematic for this important IRL extension. Having to associate a subset of input trajectories to a reward function that likely generates it (also called the data association problem) makes this extension challenging. This becomes further complex when the number of involved tasks is not known.
6.2.2 Methods
Diverse methods have sought to address the problem defined in Def. 4, and we briefly review them below.
BabesVroman et al. BabesVroman2011 assume that a linear reward function of an expert can change over time in a chain of tasks. The method aims to learn multiple reward functions with common features ${\{{R}_{i}={w}_{i}^{T}\varphi \}}_{i=1}^{n},n\in \mathbb{N}$. Given prior knowledge of $K$, the solution is a pair of weight vector ${\bm{w}}_{i}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{k}$ and a correspondence probability for each reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}^{K}$. This probabilistically ties a cluster of trajectories to a reward function. The process iteratively clusters trajectories based on current hypothesis, followed by implementation of mlirl for updating the weights. This approach is reminiscent of using expectationmaximization for Gaussian data clustering.
Continuing with the assumption of knowing $K$, birl can be generalized to a hierarchical Bayes network by introducing a hyperprior that imposes a probability measure on the space of priors over the joint rewardpolicy space. Dimitrakakis and Rothkopf Dimitrakakis2012 show how the prior is sampled from an updated posterior given an input demonstration. This posterior (and thus the sampled prior) may differ for an expert performing different tasks or multiple experts involved in different tasks. Within the context of our running example, Fig. 16 illustrates how this approach may be used to learn posteriors for multiple drivers on a merging lane of a freeway.
In contrast to parametric clustering, dpmbirl is a clustering method that learns multiple reward specifications from unlabeled fixedlength trajectories Choi2012. It differs from the previous methods in this section in that the number of experts are not known. Therefore, it addresses the problem in Def. 4 with $K$ unknown. The method initializes a nonparametric Dirichlet process of priors over the reward functions and aims to assign each input trajectory to a reward function that potentially generates it, thereby forming clusters of trajectories. Learning occurs by implementing a Bayesian update to compute the joint posterior over the reward functions and the probabilistic assignments to clusters. The procedure iterates until the reward functions and clusters stabilize.
In settings populated by multiple experts, Bogert et al. Bogert_mIRL_Int_2014 extend IRL* and maxentirl to multiple experts who may interact, albeit sparsely. While the motion dynamics of each expert is modeled separately, the interaction is modeled as a strategic game between the two experts; this approach promotes scalability to many experts. Experts are assumed to play one of the Nash equilibria profiles during the interaction, although the precise one is unknown to the learner. Alternatively, all experts may be modeled jointly as a multiagent system. Reddy et al. Reddy_DecMulti adopt this approach and model multiple interacting experts as a decentralized generalsum stochastic game. Lin et al. Lin_MultiGame propose a Bayesian method learning the distribution over rewards in a sequential zerosum stochastic multiagent game.
6.3 Incomplete Model
Definition 2 for IRL assumes full knowledge of the transition model $T$ and the reward feature functions. However, knowing the transition probabilities that represent the dynamics or specifying the complete feature set is challenging and often unrealistic. Handdesigned features introduce structure to the reward, but they increase the engineering burden. Inverse learning is difficult when the learner is partially unaware of the expert’s dynamics or when the known features do not sufficiently model the expert’s preferences. Subsequently, the learner must estimate the missing components for inferring ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$. Readers familiar with RL may notice that these extensions share similarity with modelfree RL where the transition model and reward function features are also unknown.
6.3.1 Extended Definition
Definition 0 (Incomplete dynamics).
Let an MDP without reward, $\mathcal{M}{\backslash}_{{R}_{E}}=(S,A,\widehat{T},\gamma )$, represent the dynamics between an expert and its environment, where $\widehat{T}$ specifies the probabilities for a subset of all possible transitions. The input is demonstration $\mathcal{D}=\{{\u27e8({s}_{0},{a}_{0}),({s}_{1},{a}_{1}),\mathrm{\dots}({s}_{j},{a}_{j})\u27e9}_{i=1}^{N}\}$, ${s}_{j}\in S$, ${a}_{j}\in A$, $i,j,N\in \mathbb{N}$ or expert’s policy ${\pi}_{E}$. Then, determine reward ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ that best explains either the input policy ${\pi}_{E}$ or the observed demonstration $\mathcal{D}$.
Figure 17 illustrates the corresponding generalized IRL pipeline. Next, we define the IRL problem when the set of basis feature functions is incomplete.
Definition 0.
(Incomplete features) Let an MDP without reward, $\mathcal{M}{\backslash}_{{R}_{E}}=(S,A,T,\gamma )$, represent the dynamics of an expert and its environment. Let the reward function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}=f(\mathit{\varphi})$ depend on the feature set $\mathit{\varphi}$. The input is demonstration $\mathcal{D}=\{{\u27e8({s}_{0}^{i},{a}_{0}^{i}),({s}_{1}^{i},{a}_{1}^{i}),\mathrm{\dots}({s}_{j}^{i},{a}_{j}^{i})\u27e9}_{i=1}^{N}\}$, ${s}_{j}\in S$, ${a}_{j}\in A$, $i,j,N\in \mathbb{N}$ or expert’s policy ${\pi}_{E}$. If the given feature set $\mathit{\varphi}$ is incomplete, find the features and function ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ that best explains the input.
6.3.2 Methods
While the majority of IRL methods assume completely specified dynamics, we briefly review two that learn the dynamics in addition to the reward function. mwal obtains the maximum likelihood estimate of unknown transition probabilities by computing the frequencies of stateaction pairs which are observed more than a preset threshold number of times. The process determines the complete transition function by routing the transitions for remaining stateaction pairs to an absorbing state. To give formal guarantees for the accuracy of learned dynamics and thereby the reward function, the algorithm leverages a theoretical upper bound on the accuracy of the learned transition model if the learner receives a given minimum amount of demonstration. Then, the upper bound on learning error in the MDP with learned transition model naturally extends to the actual MDP of expert Syed2008_supplement.
While mwal assumes that a learner fully observes the states, mIRL*${}_{\backslash T}$ Bogert_mIRL_Int_2014 focuses on limited observations with unknown transition probabilities and multiple experts. Bogert and Doshi model each transition as an event composed of underlying components. For example, movement by a robot may be decomposed into its left and right wheels moving at some angular velocity. Therefore, the probability of reaching intended location by moving forward is the joint probability of left and right wheels rotating with the same velocities. The learner is assumed to know the intended next state for a stateaction pair, and probability not assigned to the intended state is distributed equally among the unintended next states. Importantly, the components, also called transition features, are likely to be shared between observable and unobserved transitions as shown in Fig. 18. Therefore, a fixed distribution over the transition features determines $T$. The frequencies of a stateaction pair in the demonstration provide a set of empirical joint probabilities, as potential solutions. The preferred solution is the distribution of component probabilities with the maximum entropy. mIRL*\t generalizes better than mwal because the structure introduced by shared features is more generalizable in the space of transition probabilities than a local frequency based estimation.
On the other hand, Boularias et al. Boularias2011relative shows that the transition models approximated from a small set of demonstrations may result in highly inaccurate solutions. To this end, piirl learns a reward function without any input transition probabilities. Furthermore, for estimating the unknown dynamics, gcl Levine_UnknownDynamics_NN_policy iteratively runs a linearGaussian controller (current policy) to generate trajectory samples, fits local linearGaussian dynamics to them by using linear regression, and updates the controller under the fitted dynamics.
A generalization of mmp that focuses on IRL when the feature vector is known to be insufficient to explain the expert’s behavior is mmpboost Ratliff2007. In this case, the method assumes that a predefined set of primitive features, which are easier to specify, create the reward feature functions. In the space of nonlinear functions of base features, mmpboost searches new features that make the demonstrated trajectories more likely and any alternative (simulated) trajectories less likely. Consequently, the hypothesized reward function performs better than the one with original feature functions. Further, it is well known that methods employing L1 regularization objectives can learn robustly when input features are not completely relevant Ng_RegularizationComparison. In addition to mmpboost, gpirl also uses this concept of base features to learn a new set of features which correspond better to the observed behavior. Wulfmeier et al. Wulfmeier2015 and Finn et al. Finn_gcl utilize neural networks as function approximators that avoid the cumbersome handengineering of appropriate reward features.
In some applications, it is important to capture the logical relationships between base features to learn an optimum function representing the expert’s reward. Most methods do not determine these relationships automatically. firl constructs features by capturing these relationships. In contrast, bnpfirl uses an Indian buffet process to derive a Markov Chain Monte Carlo procedure for Bayesian inference of the features and weights of a linear reward function Choi2013bayesian. bnpfirl is demonstrated to construct features more succinct than those by firl. Of course, all these methods are applicable only in domains where the feature space is sufficient to satisfactorily express the reward function.
6.4 Nonlinear Reward Function
A majority of the IRL methods such as projection, mmp, and maxentirl assume that the solution is a weighted linear combination of a set of reward features (Eq. 3). While this is sufficient for many domains, a linear representation may be over simplistic in complex real tasks especially when raw sensory input is used to compute the reward values Finn_gcl. Also, analyzing the learner’s performance w.r.t. the best solution seems compromised when a linear form restricts the class of possible solutions. But a significant challenge for relaxing this assumption is that nonlinear reward functions may take any shape, which could lead to a very large number of parameters and search space.
As our definition of IRL given in Def. 2 does not involve the structure of the learned reward function, it continues to represent the problem in the context of nonlinear reward functions as well.
To overcome the shortcomings of using a linear reward function, methods mmpboost, learch, and gpirl infer a nonlinear reward function. mmpboost and learch use a matrix of features in an image (cost map) and gpirl uses a Gaussian process for representing the nonlinear function ${R}_{E}=f(\varphi )$. Figure 19 shows the benefit of a nonlinear form with boosted features as compared to a restrictive linear form. In addition to these, Wulfmeier et al. Wulfmeier2015 and Finn et al. Finn_gcl represent a complex nonlinear cost function using a neural network approximation, thereby avoiding the assumption of a linear form.
7 Discussion
This section distills the methods discussed previously (Section 4), and how they mitigated some of the challenges and the progress made so far (Sections 5 and 6) into a concise discussion of the significant milestones that have been achieved by the methods in this relatively new area so far, and the significant shortcomings of the presented methods. As such, this section is useful to a reader who is interested in IRL and wishes to know what has been accomplished and what remains largely unaddressed.
7.1 Milestones
Through the use of principled techniques such as maximum entropy optimization, maximum posterior and likelihood, and Gaussian process regression, solution methods have made significant progress in addressing IRL’s primary challenge of being an underconstrained learning problem and admitting several satisficing hypotheses without introducing unnecessary bias.
The intractability of this machine learning problem due to its large hypothesis space has been significantly mitigated through the adoption of a reward function composed of linearlyweighted features. Though this imposed structure limits the hypothesis class, it often adequately represents the reward function in many problem domains. Importantly, it allowed the use of feature expectations as a sufficient statistic for representing the value of trajectories or the value of an expert’s policy. This has contributed significantly to the success of early methods such as projection, mmp and maxent.
The presence of degenerate and multiple solutions led early methods such as maxmargin and mwal to introduce bias in their optimizations. However, a side effect of this bias is that these methods may compute a policy ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ with zero probability assigned to some of the demonstrated actions Ziebart2010. Indeed, this is also observed in maximum likelihood based approaches such as mlirl. Subsequent methods have largely solved this issue. For example, mmp makes the solution policy have stateaction visitations that align with those in the expert’s demonstration. maxent distributes probability mass based on entropy but under the constraint of feature expectation matching. Further, gpirl addresses it by assigning a higher probability mass to the reward function corresponding to the demonstrated behavior, seeking posterior distributions with low variance.
Finally, among the various evaluation metrics discussed in Section 3.1, ILE has gained prominence as a robust measure of solution quality during formative evaluations. And, there is significant recognition that practical applications of IRL must deal with issues such as partial occlusion of the trajectory and that realworld demonstrations may interleave trajectories generated by multiple distinct reward functions.
7.2 Shortcomings
IRL aims to reduce hand tuning the reward function to obtain the observed behavior in an agent. Though a variety of remarkable endeavors exist for solving this problem, there are some parameters in all the methods which could get hard to tune in state spaces larger than few dozens of states. For example, base features of a reward function, an appropriate prior distribution in Bayesian methods, or the control parameter $\beta $ in Eq. 10 continue to require manual input.
In our survey of several IRL methods, we observed that very few methods provably analyzed the sample or time complexity of their techniques, and compared it with those of other methods. Indeed, projection and mwal are the only methods among the foundational ones that provide a sample complexity analysis. These methods use Hoeffding’s inequality to relate the error in estimated feature expectations with the minimum sample complexity. As such, there is a general lack of theoretical guidance on the complexity of IRL as a problem, and on the complexity and accuracy of IRL methods, with most focusing on empirical comparisons to establish improvement.
A particularly egregious shortcoming is that the existing set of methods do not scale reasonably to beyond a few dozens of states or more than ten possible actions. This is a critical limitation that limits IRL demonstrations mainly to toy problems and prevents IRL from being applied in more pragmatic applications.
Finally, there is a distinct lack of a standard testbed of problem domains for evaluating IRL methods, despite the prevalence of empirical evaluations in this area. Well designed testbeds allow methods to be evaluated along various relevant dimensions, point out shared deficiencies, and typically speed up the advance of a particular field. For example, UCI’s machine learning repository and OpenAI’s Gym library are playing significant roles in advancing the progress of supervised and reinforcement learning techniques, respectively.
8 Concluding Remarks and Future Work
Since the introduction of IRL in 1998 by Russell, researchers have demonstrated a significantly improved understanding of the inherent challenges, developed various methods for their mitigation, and investigated the extension of these challenges toward realworld applications. This survey takes a rigorous look at IRL, and focuses on the specific ways by which various methods mitigated challenges and contributed to the ongoing progress of IRL research. The reason for this focus is that we believe that successful approaches in IRL will eventually combine the synergy of different methods to solve complex learning problems that typically exhibit many challenges. Our improved understanding has also revealed more novel questions. More development and clarifications are needed to answer these new questions.
Efficient maxentIRL
The optimizations in Lafferty1996; WuKhudanpur are likely to give an improvement in maximum entropy IRL algorithms. When input data (demonstration) is structured accordingly, these algorithms make the evaluation of partition function efficient Malouf_ComparisonEstimatns.
Direct and indirect learning
When the state space is large and precise identification of ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ is cumbersome, directly learning a reward function results in a better generalization as compared to policy matching Neu2007 (see Section 3.5). However, the issue of choosing between these two ways of learning from demonstrations or exploiting their synergies warrants a more thorough analysis.
Heuristics
Choi et al. Choi2011 observes that when the authors evaluated the values of learned policy ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ and expert’s policy ${\pi}_{E}$ on the learned reward ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$, both are optimal and about equal. However, ${\widehat{\pi}}_{E}$ obtained using ${\widehat{R}}_{E}$ does not achieve the same value as ${\pi}_{E}$ when they use the true reward ${R}_{E}$ for the evaluation. This is, of course, a quantification of the reward ambiguity challenge, which we pointed out earlier in this survey. It significantly limits learning accuracy. We believe that the choice of heuristics in the optimization may mitigate this issue.
Multiexpert interaction
Recent work on IRL for multiagent interactive systems can be extended to include more general classes of interactionbased models to increase the potential for applications Lin_MultiGame; Reddy_DecMulti. These classes include models for fullyobservable state spaces (Markov games Littman1994markov_games, multiagent Markov decision processes Boutilier1999, interactiondriven Markov games Spaan_InteractiveFulObs) and partiallyobservable states (partially observable identicalpayoff stochastic games Peshkin00, multiagent team decision problems PynadathT02, decentralized Markov decision processes Bernstein02, and iPOMDPs Gmytrasiewicz_Doshi_IPOMDP illusrated in Fig. 20). Outside the domain of IRL, we note behavior prediction approaches related to inverse optimal control in multiagent gametheoretic settings WaughZB_InverseEquilibrium. The regretbased criterion in this work can be used for Markov games too: for any linear reward function, the learned behavior of agents should have regret less than or equal to that in observed behavior.
Nonstationary rewards
Most methods assume a fixed reward function that does not change. However, some authors believe that preferences of agent(s) may change with time, and the reward function can be timevariant i.e., $R:S\times A\times \eta \to \mathbb{R}$. BabesVroman et al. BabesVroman2011 capture such dynamic reward functions as multiple reward functions, but this approximation is crude. A more reasonable start in this research direction is the reward model in Kalakrishnan_continousspace.
Function approximations
As mentioned in Section 3.4, we need computationally inexpensive approximations of complex nonlinear reward functions in large state spaces. Unlike shallow local architectures, a deep neural network architecture is expressive given a large number of demonstration trajectories Bengio2007, Recent preliminary work has investigated the use of neural network based function approximation and computation of the gradient of maxent objective function using backpropagation making IRL scalable to large spaces with nonlinear rewards Wulfmeier2015; Finn_gcl. Future work in this direction may help IRL get closer to realworld applications.
Some more observations merit further enquiry and provide good avenues for future research. Many methods in IRL rely on parameter estimation techniques, and current trends show that metaheuristic algorithms can estimate the optimal parameters efficiently. Some prominent metaheuristic methods are cuckoo search algorithm yang2009cuckoo; yang2010engineering, particle swarm optimization eberhart1995particle, and the firefly algorithm yang2010firefly. As their noticeable benefits, metaheuristic algorithms do not rely on the optimization being convex, rather they can search general spaces relatively fast, and they can find a global minimum. Thus, studying the performance of these techniques in IRL should reveal new insights. When IRL methods include a model for perturbations in trajectories, they typically assume that the noise is Gaussian. However, realworld applications often admit nonGaussian disturbances. Investigations into how nonlinear, nonGaussian filtering methods Masreliez1975; gordon1993novel; arulampalam2002tutorial can address the influence of nonGaussian outliers on IRL is another direction for future research.