Abstract:In inverse reinforcement learning (IRL), the central objective is to infer underlying reward functions from observed expert behaviors in a way that not only explains the given data but also generalizes to unseen scenarios. This ensures robustness against reward ambiguity where multiple reward functions can equally explain the same expert behaviors. While significant efforts have been made in addressing this issue, current methods often face challenges with high-dimensional problems and lack a geometric foundation. This paper harnesses the optimal transport (OT) theory to provide a fresh perspective on these challenges. By utilizing the Wasserstein distance from OT, we establish a geometric framework that allows for quantifying reward ambiguity and identifying a central representation or centroid of reward functions. These insights pave the way for robust IRL methodologies anchored in geometric interpretations, offering a structured approach to tackle reward ambiguity in high-dimensional settings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the reward function ambiguity problem in Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL). Specifically, multiple different reward functions may lead to the same expert behavior, which makes it very difficult to infer a unique reward function from the observed expert behavior. Moreover, existing methods often face challenges when dealing with high - dimensional problems and lack a geometric foundation.
To solve these problems, the author introduced the Optimal Transport (OT) theory, especially using the Wasserstein distance to provide a new perspective. Through this method, the author hopes to construct a geometric framework to quantify the differences between reward functions and identify a "center" or "centroid" reward function, thereby providing a more robust method for solving the reward ambiguity problem in IRL.
### Main Contributions
1. **Quantifying Reward Ambiguity**: By calculating the distances of different reward function representations in the Wasserstein space, the similarity and difference between reward functions can be measured.
2. **Identifying the Central Reward Function**: Find a central point (centroid) in the Wasserstein space, which is on average closest to all other reward function representations. Mathematically, this centroid can be determined by the following formula:
\[
W^*=\arg\min_{W\in\Phi(R(\pi^*))}\sum_{W_i\in\Phi(R(\pi^*))}W(W, W_i)
\]
3. **Theoretical Results**:
- **Convergence Theorem**: As the number of expert trajectories increases, the inferred reward function gradually approaches the true reward function in the Wasserstein space.
\[
W_p(R_n, R_{\text{true}})\to0\quad\text{as}\quad n\to\infty
\]
- **Existence and Uniqueness of Optimal Reward**: Under certain conditions, there exists an optimal central reward function, and it is unique.
\[
R_{\text{centroid}}=\arg\min_{R\in R}\sum_{i = 1}^N W_p(R, R_i)
\]
- **Robustness to Noisy Demonstrations**: Even if there is noise in the expert demonstrations, the Wasserstein distance between the inferred reward function and the reward function in the no - noise case is still bounded.
\[
W_p(R^*(\pi^*), R^*(\pi'^*))\leq C(\epsilon)
\]
- **The Influence of Dimension on Reward Ambiguity**: As the dimension of the state - action space increases, the average Wasserstein distance between potential reward functions also increases, indicating that the reward ambiguity intensifies.
### Conclusion
By introducing the Optimal Transport theory, especially the Wasserstein distance, the author provides a new geometric perspective for the reward ambiguity problem in Inverse Reinforcement Learning. This method not only helps to better understand and quantify the differences between reward functions but also provides a theoretical basis for developing more robust IRL algorithms. Future research needs to further empirically verify the effectiveness and wide applicability of these theoretical results.