Showing 1–15 of 15 results for author: Skalse, J

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

Authors: Lukas Fluri, Leon Lang, Alessandro Abate, Patrick Forré, David Krueger, Joar Skalse

Abstract: In reinforcement learning, specifying reward functions that capture the intended task can be very challenging. Reward learning aims to address this issue by learning the reward function. However, a learned reward model may have a low error on the training distribution, and yet subsequently produce a policy with large regret. We say that such a reward model has an error-regret mismatch. The main so… ▽ More In reinforcement learning, specifying reward functions that capture the intended task can be very challenging. Reward learning aims to address this issue by learning the reward function. However, a learned reward model may have a low error on the training distribution, and yet subsequently produce a policy with large regret. We say that such a reward model has an error-regret mismatch. The main source of an error-regret mismatch is the distributional shift that commonly occurs during policy optimization. In this paper, we mathematically show that a sufficiently low expected test error of the reward model guarantees low worst-case regret, but that for any fixed expected test error, there exist realistic data distributions that allow for error-regret mismatch to occur. We then show that similar problems persist even when using policy regularization techniques, commonly employed in methods such as RLHF. Our theoretical results highlight the importance of developing new ways to measure the quality of learned reward models. △ Less

Submitted 22 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: 58 pages, 1 figure

Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems

Authors: David "davidad" Dalrymple, Joar Skalse, Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Max Tegmark, Sanjit Seshia, Steve Omohundro, Christian Szegedy, Ben Goldhaber, Nora Ammann, Alessandro Abate, Joe Halpern, Clark Barrett, Ding Zhao, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Jeannette Wing, Joshua Tenenbaum

Abstract: Ensuring that AI systems reliably and robustly avoid harmful or dangerous behaviours is a crucial challenge, especially for AI systems with a high degree of autonomy and general intelligence, or systems used in safety-critical contexts. In this paper, we will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these appro… ▽ More Ensuring that AI systems reliably and robustly avoid harmful or dangerous behaviours is a crucial challenge, especially for AI systems with a high degree of autonomy and general intelligence, or systems used in safety-critical contexts. In this paper, we will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. This is achieved by the interplay of three core components: a world model (which provides a mathematical description of how the AI system affects the outside world), a safety specification (which is a mathematical description of what effects are acceptable), and a verifier (which provides an auditable proof certificate that the AI satisfies the safety specification relative to the world model). We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them. We also argue for the necessity of this approach to AI safety, and for the inadequacy of the main alternative approaches. △ Less

Submitted 8 July, 2024; v1 submitted 10 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Quantifying the Sensitivity of Inverse Reinforcement Learning to Misspecification

Authors: Joar Skalse, Alessandro Abate

Abstract: Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) aims to infer an agent's preferences (represented as a reward function $R$) from their behaviour (represented as a policy $π$). To do this, we need a behavioural model of how $π$ relates to $R$. In the current literature, the most common behavioural models are optimality, Boltzmann-rationality, and causal entropy maximisation. However, the true relationship bet… ▽ More Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) aims to infer an agent's preferences (represented as a reward function $R$) from their behaviour (represented as a policy $π$). To do this, we need a behavioural model of how $π$ relates to $R$. In the current literature, the most common behavioural models are optimality, Boltzmann-rationality, and causal entropy maximisation. However, the true relationship between a human's preferences and their behaviour is much more complex than any of these behavioural models. This means that the behavioural models are misspecified, which raises the concern that they may lead to systematic errors if applied to real data. In this paper, we analyse how sensitive the IRL problem is to misspecification of the behavioural model. Specifically, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions that completely characterise how the observed data may differ from the assumed behavioural model without incurring an error above a given threshold. In addition to this, we also characterise the conditions under which a behavioural model is robust to small perturbations of the observed policy, and we analyse how robust many behavioural models are to misspecification of their parameter values (such as e.g.\ the discount rate). Our analysis suggests that the IRL problem is highly sensitive to misspecification, in the sense that very mild misspecification can lead to very large errors in the inferred reward function. △ Less

Submitted 11 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

On the Limitations of Markovian Rewards to Express Multi-Objective, Risk-Sensitive, and Modal Tasks

Authors: Joar Skalse, Alessandro Abate

Abstract: In this paper, we study the expressivity of scalar, Markovian reward functions in Reinforcement Learning (RL), and identify several limitations to what they can express. Specifically, we look at three classes of RL tasks; multi-objective RL, risk-sensitive RL, and modal RL. For each class, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions that describe when a problem in this class can be expressed usi… ▽ More In this paper, we study the expressivity of scalar, Markovian reward functions in Reinforcement Learning (RL), and identify several limitations to what they can express. Specifically, we look at three classes of RL tasks; multi-objective RL, risk-sensitive RL, and modal RL. For each class, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions that describe when a problem in this class can be expressed using a scalar, Markovian reward. Moreover, we find that scalar, Markovian rewards are unable to express most of the instances in each of these three classes. We thereby contribute to a more complete understanding of what standard reward functions can and cannot express. In addition to this, we also call attention to modal problems as a new class of problems, since they have so far not been given any systematic treatment in the RL literature. We also briefly outline some approaches for solving some of the problems we discuss, by means of bespoke RL algorithms. △ Less

Submitted 26 January, 2024; originally announced January 2024.

Journal ref: Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, PMLR 216:1974-1984, 2023

On The Expressivity of Objective-Specification Formalisms in Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Rohan Subramani, Marcus Williams, Max Heitmann, Halfdan Holm, Charlie Griffin, Joar Skalse

Abstract: Most algorithms in reinforcement learning (RL) require that the objective is formalised with a Markovian reward function. However, it is well-known that certain tasks cannot be expressed by means of an objective in the Markov rewards formalism, motivating the study of alternative objective-specification formalisms in RL such as Linear Temporal Logic and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning. To d… ▽ More Most algorithms in reinforcement learning (RL) require that the objective is formalised with a Markovian reward function. However, it is well-known that certain tasks cannot be expressed by means of an objective in the Markov rewards formalism, motivating the study of alternative objective-specification formalisms in RL such as Linear Temporal Logic and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning. To date, there has not yet been any thorough analysis of how these formalisms relate to each other in terms of their expressivity. We fill this gap in the existing literature by providing a comprehensive comparison of 17 salient objective-specification formalisms. We place these formalisms in a preorder based on their expressive power, and present this preorder as a Hasse diagram. We find a variety of limitations for the different formalisms, and argue that no formalism is both dominantly expressive and straightforward to optimise with current techniques. For example, we prove that each of Regularised RL, (Outer) Nonlinear Markov Rewards, Reward Machines, Linear Temporal Logic, and Limit Average Rewards can express a task that the others cannot. The significance of our results is twofold. First, we identify important expressivity limitations to consider when specifying objectives for policy optimization. Second, our results highlight the need for future research which adapts reward learning to work with a greater variety of formalisms, since many existing reward learning methods assume that the desired objective takes a Markovian form. Our work contributes towards a more cohesive understanding of the costs and benefits of different RL objective-specification formalisms. △ Less

Submitted 17 February, 2024; v1 submitted 18 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2024

Goodhart's Law in Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Jacek Karwowski, Oliver Hayman, Xingjian Bai, Klaus Kiendlhofer, Charlie Griffin, Joar Skalse

Abstract: Implementing a reward function that perfectly captures a complex task in the real world is impractical. As a result, it is often appropriate to think of the reward function as a proxy for the true objective rather than as its definition. We study this phenomenon through the lens of Goodhart's law, which predicts that increasing optimisation of an imperfect proxy beyond some critical point decrease… ▽ More Implementing a reward function that perfectly captures a complex task in the real world is impractical. As a result, it is often appropriate to think of the reward function as a proxy for the true objective rather than as its definition. We study this phenomenon through the lens of Goodhart's law, which predicts that increasing optimisation of an imperfect proxy beyond some critical point decreases performance on the true objective. First, we propose a way to quantify the magnitude of this effect and show empirically that optimising an imperfect proxy reward often leads to the behaviour predicted by Goodhart's law for a wide range of environments and reward functions. We then provide a geometric explanation for why Goodhart's law occurs in Markov decision processes. We use these theoretical insights to propose an optimal early stopping method that provably avoids the aforementioned pitfall and derive theoretical regret bounds for this method. Moreover, we derive a training method that maximises worst-case reward, for the setting where there is uncertainty about the true reward function. Finally, we evaluate our early stopping method experimentally. Our results support a foundation for a theoretically-principled study of reinforcement learning under reward misspecification. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

STARC: A General Framework For Quantifying Differences Between Reward Functions

Authors: Joar Skalse, Lucy Farnik, Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Erik Jenner, Adam Gleave, Alessandro Abate

Abstract: In order to solve a task using reinforcement learning, it is necessary to first formalise the goal of that task as a reward function. However, for many real-world tasks, it is very difficult to manually specify a reward function that never incentivises undesirable behaviour. As a result, it is increasingly popular to use \emph{reward learning algorithms}, which attempt to \emph{learn} a reward fun… ▽ More In order to solve a task using reinforcement learning, it is necessary to first formalise the goal of that task as a reward function. However, for many real-world tasks, it is very difficult to manually specify a reward function that never incentivises undesirable behaviour. As a result, it is increasingly popular to use \emph{reward learning algorithms}, which attempt to \emph{learn} a reward function from data. However, the theoretical foundations of reward learning are not yet well-developed. In particular, it is typically not known when a given reward learning algorithm with high probability will learn a reward function that is safe to optimise. This means that reward learning algorithms generally must be evaluated empirically, which is expensive, and that their failure modes are difficult to anticipate in advance. One of the roadblocks to deriving better theoretical guarantees is the lack of good methods for quantifying the difference between reward functions. In this paper we provide a solution to this problem, in the form of a class of pseudometrics on the space of all reward functions that we call STARC (STAndardised Reward Comparison) metrics. We show that STARC metrics induce both an upper and a lower bound on worst-case regret, which implies that our metrics are tight, and that any metric with the same properties must be bilipschitz equivalent to ours. Moreover, we also identify a number of issues with reward metrics proposed by earlier works. Finally, we evaluate our metrics empirically, to demonstrate their practical efficacy. STARC metrics can be used to make both theoretical and empirical analysis of reward learning algorithms both easier and more principled. △ Less

Submitted 11 March, 2024; v1 submitted 26 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

Lexicographic Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Joar Skalse, Lewis Hammond, Charlie Griffin, Alessandro Abate

Abstract: In this work we introduce reinforcement learning techniques for solving lexicographic multi-objective problems. These are problems that involve multiple reward signals, and where the goal is to learn a policy that maximises the first reward signal, and subject to this constraint also maximises the second reward signal, and so on. We present a family of both action-value and policy gradient algorit… ▽ More In this work we introduce reinforcement learning techniques for solving lexicographic multi-objective problems. These are problems that involve multiple reward signals, and where the goal is to learn a policy that maximises the first reward signal, and subject to this constraint also maximises the second reward signal, and so on. We present a family of both action-value and policy gradient algorithms that can be used to solve such problems, and prove that they converge to policies that are lexicographically optimal. We evaluate the scalability and performance of these algorithms empirically, demonstrating their practical applicability. As a more specific application, we show how our algorithms can be used to impose safety constraints on the behaviour of an agent, and compare their performance in this context with that of other constrained reinforcement learning algorithms. △ Less

Submitted 28 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Journal ref: IJCAI 2022; Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Main Track, Pages 3430-3436

Misspecification in Inverse Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Joar Skalse, Alessandro Abate

Abstract: The aim of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) is to infer a reward function $R$ from a policy $π$. To do this, we need a model of how $π$ relates to $R$. In the current literature, the most common models are optimality, Boltzmann rationality, and causal entropy maximisation. One of the primary motivations behind IRL is to infer human preferences from human behaviour. However, the true relationsh… ▽ More The aim of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) is to infer a reward function $R$ from a policy $π$. To do this, we need a model of how $π$ relates to $R$. In the current literature, the most common models are optimality, Boltzmann rationality, and causal entropy maximisation. One of the primary motivations behind IRL is to infer human preferences from human behaviour. However, the true relationship between human preferences and human behaviour is much more complex than any of the models currently used in IRL. This means that they are misspecified, which raises the worry that they might lead to unsound inferences if applied to real-world data. In this paper, we provide a mathematical analysis of how robust different IRL models are to misspecification, and answer precisely how the demonstrator policy may differ from each of the standard models before that model leads to faulty inferences about the reward function $R$. We also introduce a framework for reasoning about misspecification in IRL, together with formal tools that can be used to easily derive the misspecification robustness of new IRL models. △ Less

Submitted 24 March, 2023; v1 submitted 6 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Journal ref: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023

Defining and Characterizing Reward Hacking

Authors: Joar Skalse, Nikolaus H. R. Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, David Krueger

Abstract: We provide the first formal definition of reward hacking, a phenomenon where optimizing an imperfect proxy reward function, $\mathcal{\tilde{R}}$, leads to poor performance according to the true reward function, $\mathcal{R}$. We say that a proxy is unhackable if increasing the expected proxy return can never decrease the expected true return. Intuitively, it might be possible to create an unhacka… ▽ More We provide the first formal definition of reward hacking, a phenomenon where optimizing an imperfect proxy reward function, $\mathcal{\tilde{R}}$, leads to poor performance according to the true reward function, $\mathcal{R}$. We say that a proxy is unhackable if increasing the expected proxy return can never decrease the expected true return. Intuitively, it might be possible to create an unhackable proxy by leaving some terms out of the reward function (making it "narrower") or overlooking fine-grained distinctions between roughly equivalent outcomes, but we show this is usually not the case. A key insight is that the linearity of reward (in state-action visit counts) makes unhackability a very strong condition. In particular, for the set of all stochastic policies, two reward functions can only be unhackable if one of them is constant. We thus turn our attention to deterministic policies and finite sets of stochastic policies, where non-trivial unhackable pairs always exist, and establish necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of simplifications, an important special case of unhackability. Our results reveal a tension between using reward functions to specify narrow tasks and aligning AI systems with human values. △ Less

Submitted 26 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Invariance in Policy Optimisation and Partial Identifiability in Reward Learning

Authors: Joar Skalse, Matthew Farrugia-Roberts, Stuart Russell, Alessandro Abate, Adam Gleave

Abstract: It is often very challenging to manually design reward functions for complex, real-world tasks. To solve this, one can instead use reward learning to infer a reward function from data. However, there are often multiple reward functions that fit the data equally well, even in the infinite-data limit. This means that the reward function is only partially identifiable. In this work, we formally chara… ▽ More It is often very challenging to manually design reward functions for complex, real-world tasks. To solve this, one can instead use reward learning to infer a reward function from data. However, there are often multiple reward functions that fit the data equally well, even in the infinite-data limit. This means that the reward function is only partially identifiable. In this work, we formally characterise the partial identifiability of the reward function given several popular reward learning data sources, including expert demonstrations and trajectory comparisons. We also analyse the impact of this partial identifiability for several downstream tasks, such as policy optimisation. We unify our results in a framework for comparing data sources and downstream tasks by their invariances, with implications for the design and selection of data sources for reward learning. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2023; v1 submitted 14 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: ICML 2023. 9 pages main paper, 26 pages total, 3 figures

ACM Class: I.2.6

A General Counterexample to Any Decision Theory and Some Responses

Authors: Joar Skalse

Abstract: In this paper I present an argument and a general schema which can be used to construct a problem case for any decision theory, in a way that could be taken to show that one cannot formulate a decision theory that is never outperformed by any other decision theory. I also present and discuss a number of possible responses to this argument. One of these responses raises the question of what it mean… ▽ More In this paper I present an argument and a general schema which can be used to construct a problem case for any decision theory, in a way that could be taken to show that one cannot formulate a decision theory that is never outperformed by any other decision theory. I also present and discuss a number of possible responses to this argument. One of these responses raises the question of what it means for two decision problems to be "equivalent" in the relevant sense, and gives an answer to this question which would invalidate the first argument. However, this position would have further consequences for how we compare different decision theories in decision problems already discussed in the literature (including e.g. Newcomb's problem). △ Less

Submitted 1 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Comments: 4 pages

Is SGD a Bayesian sampler? Well, almost

Authors: Chris Mingard, Guillermo Valle-Pérez, Joar Skalse, Ard A. Louis

Abstract: Overparameterised deep neural networks (DNNs) are highly expressive and so can, in principle, generate almost any function that fits a training dataset with zero error. The vast majority of these functions will perform poorly on unseen data, and yet in practice DNNs often generalise remarkably well. This success suggests that a trained DNN must have a strong inductive bias towards functions with l… ▽ More Overparameterised deep neural networks (DNNs) are highly expressive and so can, in principle, generate almost any function that fits a training dataset with zero error. The vast majority of these functions will perform poorly on unseen data, and yet in practice DNNs often generalise remarkably well. This success suggests that a trained DNN must have a strong inductive bias towards functions with low generalisation error. Here we empirically investigate this inductive bias by calculating, for a range of architectures and datasets, the probability $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ that an overparameterised DNN, trained with stochastic gradient descent (SGD) or one of its variants, converges on a function $f$ consistent with a training set $S$. We also use Gaussian processes to estimate the Bayesian posterior probability $P_B(f\mid S)$ that the DNN expresses $f$ upon random sampling of its parameters, conditioned on $S$. Our main findings are that $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ correlates remarkably well with $P_B(f\mid S)$ and that $P_B(f\mid S)$ is strongly biased towards low-error and low complexity functions. These results imply that strong inductive bias in the parameter-function map (which determines $P_B(f\mid S)$), rather than a special property of SGD, is the primary explanation for why DNNs generalise so well in the overparameterised regime. While our results suggest that the Bayesian posterior $P_B(f\mid S)$ is the first order determinant of $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$, there remain second order differences that are sensitive to hyperparameter tuning. A function probability picture, based on $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ and/or $P_B(f\mid S)$, can shed new light on the way that variations in architecture or hyperparameter settings such as batch size, learning rate, and optimiser choice, affect DNN performance. △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2020; v1 submitted 26 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Journal ref: Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 79 (2021), 1-64

Neural networks are a priori biased towards Boolean functions with low entropy

Authors: Chris Mingard, Joar Skalse, Guillermo Valle-Pérez, David Martínez-Rubio, Vladimir Mikulik, Ard A. Louis

Abstract: Understanding the inductive bias of neural networks is critical to explaining their ability to generalise. Here, for one of the simplest neural networks -- a single-layer perceptron with n input neurons, one output neuron, and no threshold bias term -- we prove that upon random initialisation of weights, the a priori probability $P(t)$ that it represents a Boolean function that classifies t points… ▽ More Understanding the inductive bias of neural networks is critical to explaining their ability to generalise. Here, for one of the simplest neural networks -- a single-layer perceptron with n input neurons, one output neuron, and no threshold bias term -- we prove that upon random initialisation of weights, the a priori probability $P(t)$ that it represents a Boolean function that classifies t points in ${0,1}^n$ as 1 has a remarkably simple form: $P(t) = 2^{-n}$ for $0\leq t < 2^n$. Since a perceptron can express far fewer Boolean functions with small or large values of t (low entropy) than with intermediate values of t (high entropy) there is, on average, a strong intrinsic a-priori bias towards individual functions with low entropy. Furthermore, within a class of functions with fixed t, we often observe a further intrinsic bias towards functions of lower complexity. Finally, we prove that, regardless of the distribution of inputs, the bias towards low entropy becomes monotonically stronger upon adding ReLU layers, and empirically show that increasing the variance of the bias term has a similar effect. △ Less

Submitted 2 January, 2020; v1 submitted 25 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems

Authors: Evan Hubinger, Chris van Merwijk, Vladimir Mikulik, Joar Skalse, Scott Garrabrant

Abstract: We analyze the type of learned optimization that occurs when a learned model (such as a neural network) is itself an optimizer - a situation we refer to as mesa-optimization, a neologism we introduce in this paper. We believe that the possibility of mesa-optimization raises two important questions for the safety and transparency of advanced machine learning systems. First, under what circumstances… ▽ More We analyze the type of learned optimization that occurs when a learned model (such as a neural network) is itself an optimizer - a situation we refer to as mesa-optimization, a neologism we introduce in this paper. We believe that the possibility of mesa-optimization raises two important questions for the safety and transparency of advanced machine learning systems. First, under what circumstances will learned models be optimizers, including when they should not be? Second, when a learned model is an optimizer, what will its objective be - how will it differ from the loss function it was trained under - and how can it be aligned? In this paper, we provide an in-depth analysis of these two primary questions and provide an overview of topics for future research. △ Less

Submitted 1 December, 2021; v1 submitted 5 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.