Graph Reinforcement Learning for Combinatorial Optimization: A Survey and Unifying Perspective

Graphs are a natural representation for systems based on relations between connected entities. Combinatorial optimization problems, which arise when considering an objective function related to a process of interest on discrete structures, are often challenging due to the rapid growth of the solution space. The trial-and-error paradigm of Reinforcement Learning has recently emerged as a promising alternative to traditional methods, such as exact algorithms and (meta)heuristics, for discovering better decision-making strategies in a variety of disciplines including chemistry, computer science, and statistics. Despite the fact that they arose in markedly different fields, these techniques share significant commonalities. Therefore, we set out to synthesize this work in a unifying perspective that we term Graph Reinforcement Learning, interpreting it as a constructive decision-making method for graph problems. After covering the relevant technical background, we review works along the dividing line of whether the goal is to optimize graph structure given a process of interest, or to optimize the outcome of the process itself under fixed graph structure. Finally, we discuss the common challenges facing the field and open research questions. In contrast with other surveys, the present work focuses on non-canonical graph problems for which performant algorithms are typically not known and Reinforcement Learning is able to provide efficient and effective solutions.

Do Agents Dream of Electric Sheep?: Improving Generalization in Reinforcement Learning through Generative Learning

The Overfitted Brain hypothesis suggests dreams happen to allow generalization in the human brain. Here, we ask if the same is true for reinforcement learning agents as well. Given limited experience in a real environment, we use imagination-based reinforcement learning to train a policy on dream-like episodes, where non-imaginative, predicted trajectories are modified through generative augmentations. Experiments on four ProcGen environments show that, compared to classic imagination and offline training on collected experience, our method can reach a higher level of generalization when dealing with sparsely rewarded environments.

Dynamics of Moral Behavior in Heterogeneous Populations of Learning Agents

Growing concerns about safety and alignment of AI systems highlight the importance of embedding moral capabilities in artificial agents. A promising solution is the use of learning from experience, i.e., Reinforcement Learning. In multi-agent (social) environments, complex population-level phenomena may emerge from interactions between individual learning agents. Many of the existing studies rely on simulated social dilemma environments to study the interactions of independent learning agents. However, they tend to ignore the moral heterogeneity that is likely to be present in societies of agents in practice. For example, at different points in time a single learning agent may face opponents who are consequentialist (i.e., caring about maximizing some outcome over time) or norm-based (i.e., focusing on conforming to a specific norm here and now). The extent to which agents' co-development may be impacted by such moral heterogeneity in populations is not well understood. In this paper, we present a study of the learning dynamics of morally heterogeneous populations interacting in a social dilemma setting. Using a Prisoner's Dilemma environment with a partner selection mechanism, we investigate the extent to which the prevalence of diverse moral agents in populations affects individual agents' learning behaviors and emergent population-level outcomes. We observe several types of non-trivial interactions between pro-social and anti-social agents, and find that certain classes of moral agents are able to steer selfish agents towards more cooperative behavior.

(Ir)rationality and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models

Do large language models (LLMs) display rational reasoning? LLMs have been shown to contain human biases due to the data they have been trained on; whether this is reflected in rational reasoning remains less clear. In this paper, we answer this question by evaluating seven language models using tasks from the cognitive psychology literature. We find that, like humans, LLMs display irrationality in these tasks. However, the way this irrationality is displayed does not reflect that shown by humans. When incorrect answers are given by LLMs to these tasks, they are often incorrect in ways that differ from human-like biases. On top of this, the LLMs reveal an additional layer of irrationality in the significant inconsistency of the responses. Aside from the experimental results, this paper seeks to make a methodological contribution by showing how we can assess and compare different capabilities of these types of models, in this case with respect to rational reasoning.

Information-Theoretic State Variable Selection for Reinforcement Learning

Identifying the most suitable variables to represent the state is a fundamental challenge in Reinforcement Learning (RL). These variables must efficiently capture the information necessary for making optimal decisions. In order to address this problem, in this paper, we introduce the Transfer Entropy Redundancy Criterion (TERC), an information-theoretic criterion, which determines if there is \textit{entropy transferred} from state variables to actions during training. We define an algorithm based on TERC that provably excludes variables from the state that have no effect on the final performance of the agent, resulting in more sample efficient learning. Experimental results show that this speed-up is present across three different algorithm classes (represented by tabular Q-learning, Actor-Critic, and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)) in a variety of environments. Furthermore, to highlight the differences between the proposed methodology and the current state-of-the-art feature selection approaches, we present a series of controlled experiments on synthetic data, before generalizing to real-world decision-making tasks. We also introduce a representation of the problem that compactly captures the transfer of information from state variables to actions as Bayesian networks.

Learning Machine Morality through Experience and Interaction

Increasing interest in ensuring safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents. Traditionally, this has been done by imposing explicit top-down rules or hard constraints on systems, for example by filtering system outputs through pre-defined ethical rules. Recently, instead, entirely bottom-up methods for learning implicit preferences from human behavior have become increasingly popular, such as those for training and fine-tuning Large Language Models. In this paper, we provide a systematization of existing approaches to the problem of introducing morality in machines - modeled as a continuum, and argue that the majority of popular techniques lie at the extremes - either being fully hard-coded, or entirely learned, where no explicit statement of any moral principle is required. Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of methodology, we argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet more controllable and interpretable agents. In particular, we present three case studies of recent works which use learning from experience (i.e., Reinforcement Learning) to explicitly provide moral principles to learning agents - either as intrinsic rewards, moral logical constraints or textual principles for language models. For example, using intrinsic rewards in Social Dilemma games, we demonstrate how it is possible to represent classical moral frameworks for agents. We also present an overview of the existing work in this area in order to provide empirical evidence for the potential of this hybrid approach. We then discuss strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of moral learning agents. Finally, we present open research questions and implications for the future of AI safety and ethics which are emerging from this framework.

(Ir)rationality in AI: State of the Art, Research Challenges and Open Questions

The concept of rationality is central to the field of artificial intelligence. Whether we are seeking to simulate human reasoning, or the goal is to achieve bounded optimality, we generally seek to make artificial agents as rational as possible. Despite the centrality of the concept within AI, there is no unified definition of what constitutes a rational agent. This article provides a survey of rationality and irrationality in artificial intelligence, and sets out the open questions in this area. The understanding of rationality in other fields has influenced its conception within artificial intelligence, in particular work in economics, philosophy and psychology. Focusing on the behaviour of artificial agents, we consider irrational behaviours that can prove to be optimal in certain scenarios. Some methods have been developed to deal with irrational agents, both in terms of identification and interaction, however work in this area remains limited. Methods that have up to now been developed for other purposes, namely adversarial scenarios, may be adapted to suit interactions with artificial agents. We further discuss the interplay between human and artificial agents, and the role that rationality plays within this interaction; many questions remain in this area, relating to potentially irrational behaviour of both humans and artificial agents.

Guaranteeing Control Requirements via Reward Shaping in Reinforcement Learning

In addressing control problems such as regulation and tracking through reinforcement learning, it is often required to guarantee that the acquired policy meets essential performance and stability criteria such as a desired settling time and steady-state error prior to deployment. Motivated by this necessity, we present a set of results and a systematic reward shaping procedure that (i) ensures the optimal policy generates trajectories that align with specified control requirements and (ii) allows to assess whether any given policy satisfies them. We validate our approach through comprehensive numerical experiments conducted in two representative environments from OpenAI Gym: the Inverted Pendulum swing-up problem and the Lunar Lander. Utilizing both tabular and deep reinforcement learning methods, our experiments consistently affirm the efficacy of our proposed framework, highlighting its effectiveness in ensuring policy adherence to the prescribed control requirements.

Tree Search in DAG Space with Model-based Reinforcement Learning for Causal Discovery

Identifying causal structure is central to many fields ranging from strategic decision-making to biology and economics. In this work, we propose a model-based reinforcement learning method for causal discovery based on tree search, which builds directed acyclic graphs incrementally. We also formalize and prove the correctness of an efficient algorithm for excluding edges that would introduce cycles, which enables deeper discrete search and sampling in DAG space. We evaluate our approach on two real-world tasks, achieving substantially better performance than the state-of-the-art model-free method and greedy search, constituting a promising advancement for combinatorial methods.

Steps Towards Satisficing Distributed Dynamic Team Trust

Defining and measuring trust in dynamic, multiagent teams is important in a range of contexts, particularly in defense and security domains. Team members should be trusted to work towards agreed goals and in accordance with shared values. In this paper, our concern is with the definition of goals and values such that it is possible to define 'trust' in a way that is interpretable, and hence usable, by both humans and robots. We argue that the outcome of team activity can be considered in terms of 'goal', 'individual/team values', and 'legal principles'. We question whether alignment is possible at the level of 'individual/team values', or only at the 'goal' and 'legal principles' levels. We argue for a set of metrics to define trust in human-robot teams that are interpretable by human or robot team members, and consider an experiment that could demonstrate the notion of 'satisficing trust' over the course of a simulated mission.