The Perils of Optimizing Learned Reward Functions: Low Training Error Does Not Guarantee Low Regret

Overview

• In reinforcement learning, specifying reward functions that capture the intended task can be challenging.
• Reward learning aims to address this by learning the reward function, but a learned reward model may have low error on the training data yet produce a policy with large regret, known as an error-regret mismatch.
• The main source of error-regret mismatch is the distributional shift that occurs during policy optimization.
• The paper provides theoretical results on the conditions under which a low expected test error of the reward model guarantees low worst-case regret, as well as the limitations of this guarantee.

Plain English Explanation

In reinforcement learning, the goal is for an agent to learn how to perform a task by receiving rewards or punishments for its actions. However, defining the right reward function that captures the intended task can be very difficult. Reward learning aims to address this by having the agent learn the reward function itself.

The problem is that the learned reward model may perform well on the training data, but when used to optimize the agent's policy, it can lead to a policy with large regret - meaning the agent's actions are far from optimal. This mismatch between the model's error and the resulting policy's regret is called an error-regret mismatch.

The main reason for this mismatch is that the distribution of states the agent encounters during training is often different from the distribution it sees during policy optimization. This distributional shift can cause the learned reward model to fail to capture the true reward function.

The paper shows that while a sufficiently low expected test error of the reward model can guarantee low worst-case regret, there are realistic data distributions where error-regret mismatch can still occur, even with this low test error. It also shows that similar problems persist even when using common techniques like policy regularization, as used in methods like RLHF.

These theoretical results highlight the importance of developing new ways to measure the quality of learned reward models, beyond just their error on test data.

Technical Explanation

The paper provides a mathematical analysis of the error-regret mismatch problem in reward learning. Specifically, the authors show that while a sufficiently low expected test error of the reward model can guarantee low worst-case regret, there are realistic data distributions where error-regret mismatch can still occur, even with this low test error.

The authors first formally define the error-regret mismatch problem and identify the main cause as the distributional shift that commonly occurs during policy optimization. They then prove a theorem stating that a low expected test error of the reward model is sufficient to guarantee low worst-case regret.

However, the authors also prove that for any fixed expected test error, there exist realistic data distributions that allow for error-regret mismatch to occur. This means that the low test error guarantee has important limitations.

The authors further show that similar problems persist even when using policy regularization techniques, such as those employed in RLHF. These techniques aim to mitigate distributional shift, but the authors demonstrate that they do not fully resolve the error-regret mismatch issue.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides important theoretical insights into the challenges of reward learning and the limitations of using test error as a quality metric for learned reward models. The authors' proofs and examples highlight the fundamental difficulty in ensuring that a reward model that performs well on the training distribution will also lead to an optimal policy.

One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses on a specific mathematical formulation of the problem, which may not capture all the nuances of real-world reward learning scenarios. Additionally, the paper does not propose any concrete solutions to the error-regret mismatch problem, instead emphasizing the need for developing new ways to measure the quality of learned reward models.

Further research could investigate alternative approaches to reward learning, such as Bayesian optimization or calibrated regret metrics, that may be better equipped to handle the distributional shift and error-regret mismatch issues. Additionally, exploring open problems in the area of model-based reinforcement learning could lead to new insights and solutions.

Conclusion

This paper highlights a fundamental challenge in reward learning: the potential for a learned reward model to perform well on the training data yet lead to a suboptimal policy due to distributional shift. The authors provide theoretical results showing the limitations of using test error as a quality metric for reward models, and emphasize the importance of developing new ways to measure and ensure the quality of learned reward functions.

These insights are crucial for the continued advancement of reinforcement learning techniques, as they point to the need for more robust and reliable methods for specifying and learning reward functions. Addressing the error-regret mismatch problem is an important step towards building AI systems that can reliably learn and execute complex tasks.