Iterative Reachability Estimation for Safe Reinforcement Learning

Ensuring safety is important for the practical deployment of reinforcement learning (RL). Various challenges must be addressed, such as handling stochasticity in the environments, providing rigorous guarantees of persistent state-wise safety satisfaction, and avoiding overly conservative behaviors that sacrifice performance. We propose a new framework, Reachability Estimation for Safe Policy Optimization (RESPO), for safety-constrained RL in general stochastic settings. In the feasible set where there exist violation-free policies, we optimize for rewards while maintaining persistent safety. Outside this feasible set, our optimization produces the safest behavior by guaranteeing entrance into the feasible set whenever possible with the least cumulative discounted violations. We introduce a class of algorithms using our novel reachability estimation function to optimize in our proposed framework and in similar frameworks such as those concurrently handling multiple hard and soft constraints. We theoretically establish that our algorithms almost surely converge to locally optimal policies of our safe optimization framework. We evaluate the proposed methods on a diverse suite of safe RL environments from Safety Gym, PyBullet, and MuJoCo, and show the benefits in improving both reward performance and safety compared with state-of-the-art baselines.

Paper

References (58)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer hXDB8/10 · confidence 5/52023-06-16

Summary

This paper proposed an iterative reachability estimation method for safe RL. The reachability is estimated by the probability of future trajectories entering unsafe state sets. Compare to previous reachability-based methods, the proposed method could handle stochastic dynamics and also improved the performance with deterministic dynamics. The proposed algorithm also leverages more information from data which could explain the performance improvement compared to existing methods. Theoretical convergence results are provided. Experimental results well supported the claimed performance improvement and safety guarantees. This paper has removed one significant limitation, the deterministic dynamics assumption in previous studies. Removing this limitation should be very careful, and I think the authors did it very well. The author also connected HJ reachability with CMDP, which is two important definitions in the safe RL. Therefore, I strongly suggested the paper be accepted.

Strengths

Originality: Very good. As far as I now, no paper has considered stochastic reachability with the constrained RL setup. The authors also did a good job of connecting HJ reachability and CMDP, which are two important definitions in constrained RL that used to be separately considered. This combination also removed significant limitations, the deterministic dynamics of the previous study. Quality: Excellent. The paper very clearly explained the relation and improvement with respect to the previous paper in both deterministic and stochastic settings and did a comprehensive comparison in the experimental section. The authors also summarized the novelty and advantages of intuitions which is very easy to understand, i.e., previous methods only consider the maximum violation, which might lose information in the whole episode. Clarity: The presentation of this paper is good. Significance: The safety of stochastic systems is very important and challenging. There have been many theories and studies to formulate the problem, and reachability is undoubtedly one of the most powerful methods. Handling stochastic reachability should be very careful.

Weaknesses

I feel good about most of the paper, I only have comments on some minor problems: 1. The problem formulation, equation (4) should be emphasized better so that the reader will know this is the proposed problem formulation. 2. The notation system is a bit messy. The readers might get lost easily, especially those not familiar with the previous paper. 3. Algorithm 1 actually did not provide too much useful information. You should improve it to highlight the differences between your algorithm and the previous ones, like the REF update.

Questions

I like most of the intuitions to explain the advantages of this paper. However, I have some questions: 1. (line 179 - 181, about the claimed limitations of previous work RCRL) _**These improvements in costs can be crucial in guiding the optimization toward a safer policy.** And optimizing with $V_h(s) $ can result in accumulating an unlimited number of violations smaller than the maximum violation._ I roughly got the intuition. I think you mean that some policies might be too far away from the safe policy. The optimization landscape looks like $V_h(s)$ should be non-decreasing in the first few steps but finally decrease to a low value. This is indeed interesting. Because from my intuition, a good policy update should always point to the direction that $V_h(s)$ decreases. Did you observe this in the experiment? If so, could you show me this phenomenon with some experimental results? It would be super helpful for enhancing the contribution of this paper. 2. (Section 5.3, about the REF and multiplier.) The REF update actually relies on the distribution density function. It seems like you did not include this paper in the references, > Qin, Zengyi, Yuxiao Chen, and Chuchu Fan. "Density constrained reinforcement learning." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2021. I think it is a good paper to further understand the relationship between density function and Lagrange multipliers in safe RL problems. You should discuss the relationship with this paper.

Rating

8: Strong Accept: Technically strong paper, with novel ideas, excellent impact on at least one area, or high-to-excellent impact on multiple areas, with excellent evaluation, resources, and reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer teXi7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-01

Summary

This paper presents Reachability Estimation for Safe Policy Optimization (RESPO), for safety-constrained RL in general stochastic settings. The authors extend the previous RCRL approach into stochastic settings and push the agent to (re)enter the feasible region. They formulate a safe RL problem with REF and further develop an adapted AC algorithm to solve it, with convergence analysis. They compare their approach against CMDP-based approaches with a soft constraint and RCRL with a hard constraint, showing the advantages.

Strengths

The paper is well-motivated and well-structured to follow. It studies a critical problem. Based on RCRL, this paper does have some novelties in problem formulation and proposed approach. Technically, this paper is sound to me, although I only checked part of the math proof in the appendix. The experiments are promising as they show mixed performance and safety violation improvements.

Weaknesses

1. The writing could be further improved, especially the comparison with RCRL. The reviewer acknowledges that there is some explanation of the difference between the proposed approach and RCRL, still, it would be much better to add more and clarify it. For example, the reviewer is confused why RCRL cannot guarantee or optimize (re)entrance to the feasible set. Couldn't use the same proof of Proposition 2 to obtain the same (re)entrance proposition? 2. For the deterministic environments, my understanding is RCRL considers a harder constraint as it is per state constraint than the discounted additive constraints in your paper, why the harder constraint cannot optimize/guarantee (re)entrance to the feasible set? 3. How does the reentrance proved from the deterministic environment applied to stochastic systems? 3. There are some recent safe RL papers considering hard constraints. For example, a. Wang, Y., Zhan, S. S., Jiao, R., Wang, Z., Jin, W., Yang, Z., ... & Zhu, Q. (2022). Enforcing hard constraints with soft barriers: Safe reinforcement learning in unknown stochastic environments. ICML 2023. b. Xiong, N. (2023). Provably Safe Reinforcement Learning with Step-wise Violation Constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06064. The authors may consider talking about these recent references in the paper revision. 4. what do you mean by "almost surely" in the convergence analysis?

Questions

Please see the weakness.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

What are the limitations of RESPO?

Reviewer YH1f7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-03

Summary

Previous approaches to safe reinforcement learning used the constrained MDP formulation where there is a constraint imposed on the cumulative sum of costs to minimise violations. This framework is not applicable very easily where there is a need for hard constraint satisfaction. The previous approach (RCRL) which leverages reachability analysis to strictly satisfy hard constraints is limited to deterministic MDP and is not suited to bringing the state back to the feasible set when already outside the feasible set. In this work, the authors minimize the expected chance and frequency of violations under stochastic transition dynamics thus resolving the two problems with the previous work. The order in which to update the Q-networks, the policy networks, the Lagrangian dual factors and the reachability estimation function is studied using an empirical approach and a theoretical convergence guarantee to a local optimum is provided for this alternating optimization. Empirical comparisons are made extensively to a wide spectrum of existing approaches.

Strengths

Advantages of paper in relation to deterministic dynamics assumption of RCRL is clear and has merit. Empirical comparisons to previous work are quite extensive with additional explanations in the appendix. Convergence to local optimum is presented to establish rigor and soundness of the method.

Weaknesses

1) In section 6, it was not very clear what to see in the figures and it looked like RESPO was achieving a different point in the trade-off curve compared to the other methods. More information was available in the appendix. More discussion on how to compare the different methods and why one method performs better in a specific metric can be written out in the main section. The motivation of the paper provides the twin advantages of getting back into the feasible set and accounting for stochasticity. The first advantage is seen in the double integrator example in the appendix. Do any of the previous methods suffer due to deterministic assumptions and is the actual MDP stochastic? 2) Since there are many networks and parameters updated at the same time, the robustness and reproducibility of the training process for this method and similar previous methods seem suspect. The authors have discussed this aspect in the ablation studies and the best possible convergence is obtained in the way the authors are doing the training. This insight, though a mild weakness, could benefit the community as we are inferring new insights about alternating optimization between multiple networks tied to each other.

Questions

1) While doing the comparison to CBF methods, it is not clearly what is being compared against. CBFs/Energy functions are usually handcrafted but there is CBVF (cited by the paper) and other related work that tries to construct the optimal CBF with maximum safety set (assuming known model). With the optimal CBF, the behaviour of CBF methods is not very conservative. If stochasticity is the source of trouble for the CBF methods, some extensions such as robust CBF and learned CBF are available. Here, the authors can provide more details about which exact CBF method they are using. 2) In line 155, should $V_c$ be in the expression for optimal policy? $V_c$ is previously defined differently. “We define optimal REF based on an optimally safe policy π∗” is then misleading. The policy is optimizing a different loss in line 227 and it is not clear whether we actually get the optimal REF from this process. 3) Assumption A3 (Lipschitz gradients) is a rather strong assumption. Are there previous cases where RL value functions are assumed to have Lipschitz gradients? 4) In figure 3, why are RCRL and FAC violating the hard constraint if they are designed to respect hard constraints? 5) The variance of the red RESPO learning curves seem to be high in certain figures indicating training instabilities

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Authors have adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer yyXc5/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-05

Summary

The paper proposes a new algorithm that may handle hard and soft constraints, in which the policy optimization and Hamilton-Jacobi reachability are leveraged to ensure safety. Moreover, experiment results on safety gym, safety PyBullet, and safety MuJoCo also show the good performance of their algorithm.

Strengths

1. The convergency analysis sounds good. 2. Comprehensive experiments are provided. 3. Hard constraints and soft constraints are investigated.

Weaknesses

1. Paper writing quality needs to be improved a lot, I am confused about the paper notation, e.g., V_h and V_c. 2. The experimental results are not correct regarding some baselines, especially for CRPO, in CRPO paper, the algorithm presents better performance than PPO-Lagrangian and CPO.

Questions

1. Could you analyze the difference between RESPO and CRPO regarding the reward update and cost update? 2. If the agent does not find the safe action, will it be stuck at a point? 3. How do you define the reachable set when considering reward performance?

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

1. The balance between reward and cost is not addressed well, in the experiments, as shown in Figure 3, although RESPO can ensure safety, the trajectory is longer than other baselines, and also not smooth. 2. Some related papers are not mentioned in the study, e.g., [Kochdumper, N., et al., 2023], [Gu, S., et al., 2022] and [Selim, M., et al., 2022]. [Kochdumper, N., et al., 2023] Kochdumper, N., Krasowski, H., Wang, X., Bak, S., & Althoff, M. (2023). Provably safe reinforcement learning via action projection using reachability analysis and polynomial zonotopes. IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, 2, 79-92. [Gu, S., et al., 2022] Gu, S., Chen, G., Zhang, L., Hou, J., Hu, Y., & Knoll, A. (2022). Constrained reinforcement learning for vehicle motion planning with topological reachability analysis. Robotics, 11(4), 81. [Selim, M., et al., 2022] Selim, M., Alanwar, A., Kousik, S., Gao, G., Pavone, M., & Johansson, K. H. (2022). Safe reinforcement learning using black-box reachability analysis. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4), 10665-10672.

Reviewer teXi2023-08-12

Thanks for the detailed rebuttals. The responses have fully addressed my questions and I am willing to increase my score to a 7.

Reviewer YH1f2023-08-12

Good job

I believe this is a strong paper. The authors have addressed all questions and provided clarifications. I have read the other reviews and comments. Overall, I am happy to increase my score to 7 at this time. I will stay tuned to see whether there are any further questions from other reviewers.

Reviewer hXDB2023-08-18

Thank you for the reply. I am now very confident that it is a good paper and the experimental results are convincing and comprehensive.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC