Rubén Majadas

h-index3
2papers
32citations

2 Papers

5.5LGFeb 12, 2021
Disturbing Reinforcement Learning Agents with Corrupted Rewards

Rubén Majadas, Javier García, Fernando Fernández

Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms have led to recent successes in solving complex games, such as Atari or Starcraft, and to a huge impact in real-world applications, such as cybersecurity or autonomous driving. In the side of the drawbacks, recent works have shown how the performance of RL algorithms decreases under the influence of soft changes in the reward function. However, little work has been done about how sensitive these disturbances are depending on the aggressiveness of the attack and the learning exploration strategy. In this paper, we propose to fill this gap in the literature analyzing the effects of different attack strategies based on reward perturbations, and studying the effect in the learner depending on its exploration strategy. In order to explain all the behaviors, we choose a sub-class of MDPs: episodic, stochastic goal-only-rewards MDPs, and in particular, an intelligible grid domain as a benchmark. In this domain, we demonstrate that smoothly crafting adversarial rewards are able to mislead the learner, and that using low exploration probability values, the policy learned is more robust to corrupt rewards. Finally, in the proposed learning scenario, a counterintuitive result arises: attacking at each learning episode is the lowest cost attack strategy.

5.1AIMay 27, 2019
Error Analysis and Correction for Weighted A*'s Suboptimality (Extended Version)

Robert C. Holte, Ruben Majadas, Alberto Pozanco et al.

Weighted A* (wA*) is a widely used algorithm for rapidly, but suboptimally, solving planning and search problems. The cost of the solution it produces is guaranteed to be at most W times the optimal solution cost, where W is the weight wA* uses in prioritizing open nodes. W is therefore a suboptimality bound for the solution produced by wA*. There is broad consensus that this bound is not very accurate, that the actual suboptimality of wA*'s solution is often much less than W times optimal. However, there is very little published evidence supporting that view, and no existing explanation of why W is a poor bound. This paper fills in these gaps in the literature. We begin with a large-scale experiment demonstrating that, across a wide variety of domains and heuristics for those domains, W is indeed very often far from the true suboptimality of wA*'s solution. We then analytically identify the potential sources of error. Finally, we present a practical method for correcting for two of these sources of error and experimentally show that the correction frequently eliminates much of the error.