arxiv-1606-03137 SRC-0002 · paper

Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning

Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Anca Dragan, Pieter Abbeel, Stuart Russell

Created: 2016-06-09 · Ingested: 2026-09-18

For an autonomous system to be helpful to humans and to pose no unwarranted risks, it needs to align its values with those of the humans in its environment in such a way that its actions contribute to the maximization of value for the humans. We propose a formal definition of the value alignment problem as cooperative inverse reinforcement learning (CIRL). A CIRL problem is a cooperative, partial-information game with two agents, human and robot; both are rewarded according to the human's reward function, but the robot does not initially know what this is. In contrast to classical IRL, where the human is assumed to act optimally in isolation, optimal CIRL solutions produce behaviors such as active teaching, active learning, and communicative actions that are more effective in achieving value alignment. We show that computing optimal joint policies in CIRL games can be reduced to solv…

In brief

Optimal demonstrations for a reward-learning robot are not expert demonstrations. If the human and robot share the human's reward function and the robot is learning it, the human's best strategy is to sacrifice immediate reward to be informative, which breaks the core assumption of inverse reinforcement learning.

The paper defines cooperative inverse reinforcement learning (CIRL): a 2-player Markov game with identical payoffs where only the human observes the reward parameter θ. It proves computing optimal joint policies reduces to a single-agent POMDP with hidden state space of size |S|·|Θ|, exponentially cheaper than the NEXP-complete dec-POMDP route, and that the robot's posterior over θ is a sufficient statistic. A toy office-supplies game (human makes 2 items, robot 50 or 90) gives a concrete counterexample: the expert rule picks (1,1) only at θ = 0.5, while the true best response picks it for θ ∈ [41/92, 51/92].

Empirically, on a 2D grid navigation task with MaxEnt IRL as the robot, an approximate feature-matching "instructive" human policy beat demonstration-by-expert on regret, KL-divergence and reward ℓ2-norm, with N = 500 sampled reward parameters at 3 and 10 features (all F > 962, p < .0001). Regret was lowest at intermediate values of the rationality parameter λ.

The theory is proved; the experiments are simulated, 1 domain, 1 IRL algorithm, no human subjects, and the human's best response is an ℓ2 approximation rather than the exact POMDP solution. Coordination between independently trained agents is left open.

If you build systems that learn objectives from demonstrations, expect experienced users to deviate from optimal behavior, and treat that as signal rather than noise.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-18, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

No claims cite this yet.