A unified analytical framework for comparing dynamic reward shaping and neighbouring adaptive reward mechanisms is introduced, which distinguishes parametric revision from state-dependent variation, separates additive shaping from reward replacement and reward-adjacent guidance, and organises existing methods along temporal, informational, and theoretical dimensions.
Abstract
Sparse, delayed, and weakly informative rewards remain central obstacles to efficient reinforcement learning. Reward shaping addresses these limitations by supplementing the task reward with an auxiliary signal that can accelerate learning while, in the classical setting, the original objective remains the evaluation criterion. Established theory guarantees safety for fixed shaping signals: potential-based reward shaping preserves optimal policies when the auxiliary term is the discounted difference of a time-invariant potential. In contemporary reinforcement learning systems, however, both the learner and the information available for guidance evolve during training: value estimates improve, novelty diminishes, feedback shifts, and predictive models are refined. Adaptive reward mechanisms occur across exploration, Bayesian inference, human-in-the-loop learning, automated reward design, and foundation-model-based approaches. This study introduces a unified analytical framework for comparing dynamic reward shaping and neighbouring adaptive reward mechanisms. The proposed framework distinguishes parametric revision from state-dependent variation, separates additive shaping from reward replacement and reward-adjacent guidance, and organises existing methods along temporal, informational, and theoretical dimensions. Using this framework, twelve method families are comparatively analysed. The framework further highlights the conditions under which optimality guarantees survive contemporary deep reinforcement learning pipelines, replay buffers, bootstrapped critics, and reward normalisation, while exposing the unresolved relationship between adaptation rate and learner stability.
A unified view of ARD in RL is provided by introducing a taxonomy, organized by the primary driver of the reward variation, that distinguishes external-feedback-driven reward updates from reward adaptations driven by endogenous within-run signals and those conditioned on exogenous context signals.
Raphaela Baybas, Carlo D'Eramo, Philipp Brune· 0 citations
MeRLa (Meta-Learned Reward Shaping), a principled framework that meta-learns a task-aware shaping function across auxiliary tasks before RLHF training, is introduced, providing theoretical guarantees for policy invariance, analyze representation drift sensitivity, and formally address incentive misalignment from entropy maximization.
This work introduces Gradient Control Rewards (GCR), an interpretable, control-inspired reward-design methodology for accelerating agent training by modulating the reward signal based on the temporal dynamics of system error, Inspired by classical control theory.
Anas Aburaya, H. Selamat, M. Muslim et al.· IEEE Access· 0 citations
This work proposes LaRes, a novel hybrid framework that achieves efficient policy learning through reward function search by leveraging large language models to generate the reward function population, guiding RL in policy learning.
Pengyi Li, Hongyao Tang, Jinbin Qiao et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 4 citations
Exploration in sparse-reward long-horizon tasks poses significant challenges for reinforcement learning. To address these challenges, we propose a two-level Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning (HRL) framework. The first level handles high-level strategic planning, while the low-level uses the continuous-control Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) algorithm, and they utilize entropy-regularized policy optimization. The proposed framework was trained and evaluated using the Search-and-Rescue-2 (SAR-2) dataset. HRL-SAC effectively addresses sparse-reward long-horizon search problems characterized by delayed rewards and continuous control, and its outperforming the flat SAC baseline reinforcement learning in terms of success rates, coverage efficiency, and convergence. These findings indicate that hierarchical entropy-regularized policies are a promising solution to tackle long-horizon sparse-reward reinforcement learning tasks.
Zahra Abdalla Elashaal, Afef Hfaiedh, N. Khraief et al.· 0 citations
In partially observable reinforcement learning, agents face a dual bottleneck: they must explore to encounter rewarding states and retain that experience in memory to optimize their policies. Exploration bonuses and memory architectures are traditionally evaluated in isolation, leaving their interaction unmeasured, and standard notions of sparse reward conflate temporal signal density with what the reward actually supervises. We present a controlled study crossing episodic exploration bonuses with diverse neural memory architectures across three environments that vary how the content of memory is acquired. An identical bonus signal yields three distinct interaction patterns: it amplifies architectural capacity differences where memory content must be actively discovered and retained unsupervised; equalizes architectures to a shared ceiling where the content, once sought out, is a single reward-supervised cue; and is null where the observation stream is purely scheduled. Controlled reward manipulations verify that these patterns track reward structure rather than density: a dense reward neutralizes a bonus only if it directly supervises the required latent memory, and a small avoidable penalty on exploratory actions (leaving the optimum unchanged) induces policy convergence to suboptimal stationary states, which either bonus resolves. We then formalize reward sparsity with observation-anchored reward machines, separating structural sparsity (an automaton reproduces the return without the task-required history) from potential sparsity (the one-step reward misprices local exploratory actions); the resulting vocabulary organizes the three regimes by the retention burden each task exposes. Together, these results show exploration and memory are complements, not substitutes: a bonus induces exposure, and only memory converts exposure into return.
Jai Malegaonkar, Rohan Patil, Henrik I. Christensen· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
