Offline reinforcement learning (RL) can in principle synthesize more optimal behavior from a dataset consisting only of suboptimal trials. One way that this can happen is by "stitching" together the best parts of otherwise suboptimal trajectories that overlap on similar states, to create new behaviors where each individual state is in-distribution, but the overall returns are higher. However, in many interesting and complex applications, such as autonomous navigation and dialogue systems, the state is partially observed. Even worse, the state representation is unknown or not easy to define. In such cases, policies and value functions are often conditioned on observation histories instead of states. In these cases, it is not clear if the same kind of "stitching" is feasible at the level of observation histories, since two different trajectories would always have different histories, and thus "similar states" that might lead to effective stitching cannot be leveraged. Theoretically, we show that standard offline RL algorithms conditioned on observation histories suffer from poor sample complexity, in accordance with the above intuition. We then identify sufficient conditions under which offline RL can still be efficient -- intuitively, it needs to learn a compact representation of history comprising only features relevant for action selection. We introduce a bisimulation loss that captures the extent to which this happens, and propose that offline RL can explicitly optimize this loss to aid worst-case sample complexity. Empirically, we show that across a variety of tasks either our proposed loss improves performance, or the value of this loss is already minimized as a consequence of standard offline RL, indicating that it correlates well with good performance.

Inferring reward functions from human behavior is at the center of value alignment - aligning AI objectives with what we, humans, actually want. But doing so relies on models of how humans behave given their objectives. After decades of research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and behavioral economics, obtaining accurate human models remains an open research topic. This begs the question: how accurate do these models need to be in order for the reward inference to be accurate? On the one hand, if small errors in the model can lead to catastrophic error in inference, the entire framework of reward learning seems ill-fated, as we will never have perfect models of human behavior. On the other hand, if as our models improve, we can have a guarantee that reward accuracy also improves, this would show the benefit of more work on the modeling side. We study this question both theoretically and empirically. We do show that it is unfortunately possible to construct small adversarial biases in behavior that lead to arbitrarily large errors in the inferred reward. However, and arguably more importantly, we are also able to identify reasonable assumptions under which the reward inference error can be bounded linearly in the error in the human model. Finally, we verify our theoretical insights in discrete and continuous control tasks with simulated and human data.

When interacting with people, AI agents do not just influence the state of the world -- they also influence the actions people take in response to the agent, and even their underlying intentions and strategies. Accounting for and leveraging this influence has mostly been studied in settings where it is sufficient to assume that human behavior is near-optimal: competitive games, or general-sum settings like autonomous driving alongside human drivers. Instead, we focus on influence in settings where there is a need to capture human suboptimality. For instance, imagine a collaborative task in which, due either to cognitive biases or lack of information, people do not perform very well -- how could an agent influence them towards more optimal behavior? Assuming near-optimal human behavior will not work here, and so the agent needs to learn from real human data. But experimenting online with humans is potentially unsafe, and creating a high-fidelity simulator of the environment is often impractical. Hence, we focus on learning from an offline dataset of human-human interactions. Our observation is that offline reinforcement learning (RL) can learn to effectively influence suboptimal humans by extending and combining elements of observed human-human behavior. We demonstrate that offline RL can solve two challenges with effective influence. First, we show that by learning from a dataset of suboptimal human-human interaction on a variety of tasks -- none of which contains examples of successful influence -- an agent can learn influence strategies to steer humans towards better performance even on new tasks. Second, we show that by also modeling and conditioning on human behavior, offline RL can learn to affect not just the human's actions but also their underlying strategy, and adapt to changes in their strategy.

We consider algorithms for learning reward functions from human preferences over pairs of trajectory segments, as used in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Most recent work assumes that human preferences are generated based only upon the reward accrued within those segments, or their partial return. Recent work casts doubt on the validity of this assumption, proposing an alternative preference model based upon regret. We investigate the consequences of assuming preferences are based upon partial return when they actually arise from regret. We argue that the learned function is an approximation of the optimal advantage function, $\hat{A^*_r}$, not a reward function. We find that if a specific pitfall is addressed, this incorrect assumption is not particularly harmful, resulting in a highly shaped reward function. Nonetheless, this incorrect usage of $\hat{A^*_r}$ is less desirable than the appropriate and simpler approach of greedy maximization of $\hat{A^*_r}$. From the perspective of the regret preference model, we also provide a clearer interpretation of fine tuning contemporary large language models with RLHF. This paper overall provides insight regarding why learning under the partial return preference model tends to work so well in practice, despite it conforming poorly to how humans give preferences.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a technique for training AI systems to align with human goals. RLHF has emerged as the central method used to finetune state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs). Despite this popularity, there has been relatively little public work systematizing its flaws. In this paper, we (1) survey open problems and fundamental limitations of RLHF and related methods; (2) overview techniques to understand, improve, and complement RLHF in practice; and (3) propose auditing and disclosure standards to improve societal oversight of RLHF systems. Our work emphasizes the limitations of RLHF and highlights the importance of a multi-faceted approach to the development of safer AI systems.

Our goal is for robots to follow natural language instructions like "put the towel next to the microwave." But getting large amounts of labeled data, i.e. data that contains demonstrations of tasks labeled with the language instruction, is prohibitive. In contrast, obtaining policies that respond to image goals is much easier, because any autonomous trial or demonstration can be labeled in hindsight with its final state as the goal. In this work, we contribute a method that taps into joint image- and goal- conditioned policies with language using only a small amount of language data. Prior work has made progress on this using vision-language models or by jointly training language-goal-conditioned policies, but so far neither method has scaled effectively to real-world robot tasks without significant human annotation. Our method achieves robust performance in the real world by learning an embedding from the labeled data that aligns language not to the goal image, but rather to the desired change between the start and goal images that the instruction corresponds to. We then train a policy on this embedding: the policy benefits from all the unlabeled data, but the aligned embedding provides an interface for language to steer the policy. We show instruction following across a variety of manipulation tasks in different scenes, with generalization to language instructions outside of the labeled data. Videos and code for our approach can be found on our website: https://rail-berkeley.github.io/grif/ .

To interact with humans in the world, agents need to understand the diverse types of language that people use, relate them to the visual world, and act based on them. While current agents learn to execute simple language instructions from task rewards, we aim to build agents that leverage diverse language that conveys general knowledge, describes the state of the world, provides interactive feedback, and more. Our key idea is that language helps agents predict the future: what will be observed, how the world will behave, and which situations will be rewarded. This perspective unifies language understanding with future prediction as a powerful self-supervised learning objective. We present Dynalang, an agent that learns a multimodal world model that predicts future text and image representations and learns to act from imagined model rollouts. Unlike traditional agents that use language only to predict actions, Dynalang acquires rich language understanding by using past language also to predict future language, video, and rewards. In addition to learning from online interaction in an environment, Dynalang can be pretrained on datasets of text, video, or both without actions or rewards. From using language hints in grid worlds to navigating photorealistic scans of homes, Dynalang utilizes diverse types of language to improve task performance, including environment descriptions, game rules, and instructions.

Consider a robot tasked with tidying a desk with a meticulously constructed Lego sports car. A human may recognize that it is not socially appropriate to disassemble the sports car and put it away as part of the "tidying". How can a robot reach that conclusion? Although large language models (LLMs) have recently been used to enable social reasoning, grounding this reasoning in the real world has been challenging. To reason in the real world, robots must go beyond passively querying LLMs and *actively gather information from the environment* that is required to make the right decision. For instance, after detecting that there is an occluded car, the robot may need to actively perceive the car to know whether it is an advanced model car made out of Legos or a toy car built by a toddler. We propose an approach that leverages an LLM and vision language model (VLM) to help a robot actively perceive its environment to perform grounded social reasoning. To evaluate our framework at scale, we release the MessySurfaces dataset which contains images of 70 real-world surfaces that need to be cleaned. We additionally illustrate our approach with a robot on 2 carefully designed surfaces. We find an average 12.9% improvement on the MessySurfaces benchmark and an average 15% improvement on the robot experiments over baselines that do not use active perception. The dataset, code, and videos of our approach can be found at https://minaek.github.io/groundedsocialreasoning.

Auditing large language models for unexpected behaviors is critical to preempt catastrophic deployments, yet remains challenging. In this work, we cast auditing as an optimization problem, where we automatically search for input-output pairs that match a desired target behavior. For example, we might aim to find a non-toxic input that starts with "Barack Obama" that a model maps to a toxic output. This optimization problem is difficult to solve as the set of feasible points is sparse, the space is discrete, and the language models we audit are non-linear and high-dimensional. To combat these challenges, we introduce a discrete optimization algorithm, ARCA, that jointly and efficiently optimizes over inputs and outputs. Our approach automatically uncovers derogatory completions about celebrities (e.g. "Barack Obama is a legalized unborn" -> "child murderer"), produces French inputs that complete to English outputs, and finds inputs that generate a specific name. Our work offers a promising new tool to uncover models' failure-modes before deployment.

Humans have internal models of robots (like their physical capabilities), the world (like what will happen next), and their tasks (like a preferred goal). However, human internal models are not always perfect: for example, it is easy to underestimate a robot's inertia. Nevertheless, these models change and improve over time as humans gather more experience. Interestingly, robot actions influence what this experience is, and therefore influence how people's internal models change. In this work we take a step towards enabling robots to understand the influence they have, leverage it to better assist people, and help human models more quickly align with reality. Our key idea is to model the human's learning as a nonlinear dynamical system which evolves the human's internal model given new observations. We formulate a novel optimization problem to infer the human's learning dynamics from demonstrations that naturally exhibit human learning. We then formalize how robots can influence human learning by embedding the human's learning dynamics model into the robot planning problem. Although our formulations provide concrete problem statements, they are intractable to solve in full generality. We contribute an approximation that sacrifices the complexity of the human internal models we can represent, but enables robots to learn the nonlinear dynamics of these internal models. We evaluate our inference and planning methods in a suite of simulated environments and an in-person user study, where a 7DOF robotic arm teaches participants to be better teleoperators. While influencing human learning remains an open problem, our results demonstrate that this influence is possible and can be helpful in real human-robot interaction.