Revisiting Safe Exploration in Safe Reinforcement learning

David Eckel, Baohe Zhang, Joschka Bödecker
9/2/2024
cs.LGcs.AIcs.RO

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Safe reinforcement learning (SafeRL) extends standard reinforcement learning with the idea of safety, where safety is typically defined through the constraint of the expected cost return of a trajectory being below a set limit. However, this metric fails to distinguish how costs accrue, treating infrequent severe cost events as equal to frequent mild ones, which can lead to riskier behaviors and result in unsafe exploration. We introduce a new metric, expected maximum consecutive cost steps (EMCC), which addresses safety during training by assessing the severity of unsafe steps based on their consecutive occurrence. This metric is particularly effective for distinguishing between prolonged and occasional safety violations. We apply EMMC in both on- and off-policy algorithm for benchmarking their safe exploration capability. Finally, we validate our metric through a set of benchmarks and propose a new lightweight benchmark task, which allows fast evaluation for algorithm design.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{eckel2024revisiting,
  title  = {Revisiting Safe Exploration in Safe Reinforcement learning},
  author = {David Eckel and Baohe Zhang and Joschka Bödecker},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2409.01245},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01245v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2409.01245.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2409.01245)

Discussion