Risk-Sensitive Reinforcement Learning: A Constrained Optimization Viewpoint

The classic objective in a reinforcement learning (RL) problem is to find a policy that minimizes, in expectation, a long-run objective such as the infinite-horizon discounted or long-run average cost. In many practical applications, optimizing the expected value alone is not sufficient, and it may be necessary to include a risk measure in the optimization process, either as the objective or as a constraint. Various risk measures have been proposed in the literature, e.g., mean-variance tradeoff, exponential utility, the percentile performance, value at risk, conditional value at risk, prospect theory and its later enhancement, cumulative prospect theory. In this article, we focus on the combination of risk criteria and reinforcement learning in a constrained optimization framework, i.e., a setting where the goal to find a policy that optimizes the usual objective of infinite-horizon discounted/average cost, while ensuring that an explicit risk constraint is satisfied. We introduce the risk-constrained RL framework, cover popular risk measures based on variance, conditional value-at-risk and cumulative prospect theory, and present a template for a risk-sensitive RL algorithm. We survey some of our recent work on this topic, covering problems encompassing discounted cost, average cost, and stochastic shortest path settings, together with the aforementioned risk measures in a constrained framework. This non-exhaustive survey is aimed at giving a flavor of the challenges involved in solving a risk-sensitive RL problem, and outlining some potential future research directions

Epistemic risk-sensitive reinforcement learning

We develop a framework for risk-sensitive behaviour in reinforcement learning (RL) due to uncertainty about the environment dynamics by leveraging utility-based definitions of risk sensitivity. In this framework, the preference for risk can be tuned by varying the utility function, for which we develop dynamic programming (DP) and policy gradient-based algorithms. The risk-averse behavior is compared with the behavior of risk-neutral policy in environments with epistemic risk

Epistemic Risk-Sensitive Reinforcement Learning

We develop a framework for interacting with uncertain environments in reinforcement learning (RL) by leveraging preferences in the form of utility functions. We claim that there is value in considering different risk measures during learning. In this framework, the preference for risk can be tuned by variation of the parameter $\beta$ and the resulting behavior can be risk-averse, risk-neutral or risk-taking depending on the parameter choice. We evaluate our framework for learning problems with model uncertainty. We measure and control for \emph{epistemic} risk using dynamic programming (DP) and policy gradient-based algorithms. The risk-averse behavior is then compared with the behavior of the optimal risk-neutral policy in environments with epistemic risk.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figure

Neural Prediction Errors Reveal a Risk-Sensitive Reinforcement-Learning Process in the Human Brain

Humans and animals are exquisitely, though idiosyncratically, sensitive to risk or variance in the outcomes of their actions. Economic, psychological, and neural aspects of this are well studied when information about risk is provided explicitly. However, we must normally learn about outcomes from experience, through trial and error. Traditional models of such reinforcement learning focus on learning about the mean reward value of cues and ignore higher order moments such as variance. We used fMRI to test whether the neural correlates of human reinforcement learning are sensitive to experienced risk. Our analysis focused on anatomically delineated regions of a priori interest in the nucleus accumbens, where blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signals have been suggested as correlating with quantities derived from reinforcement learning. We first provide unbiased evidence that the raw BOLD signal in these regions corresponds closely to a reward prediction error. We then derive from this signal the learned values of cues that predict rewards of equal mean but different variance and show that these values are indeed modulated by experienced risk. Moreover, a close neurometric–psychometric coupling exists between the fluctuations of the experience-based evaluations of risky options that we measured neurally and the fluctuations in behavioral risk aversion. This suggests that risk sensitivity is integral to human learning, illuminating economic models of choice, neuroscientific models of affective learning, and the workings of the underlying neural mechanisms