We introduce two novel tree search algorithms that use a policy to guide search. The first algorithm is a best-first enumeration that uses a cost function that allows us to prove an upper bound on the number of nodes to be expanded before reaching a goal state. We show that this best-first algorithm is particularly well suited for `needle-in-a-haystack' problems. The second algorithm is based on sampling and we prove an upper bound on the expected number of nodes it expands before reaching a set of goal states. We show that this algorithm is better suited for problems where many paths lead to a goal. We validate these tree search algorithms on 1,000 computer-generated levels of Sokoban, where the policy used to guide the search comes from a neural network trained using A3C. Our results show that the policy tree search algorithms we introduce are competitive with a state-of-the-art domain-independent planner that uses heuristic search.

How can we design reinforcement learning agents that avoid causing unnecessary disruptions to their environment? We argue that current approaches to penalizing side effects can introduce bad incentives in tasks that require irreversible actions, and in environments that contain sources of change other than the agent. For example, some approaches give the agent an incentive to prevent any irreversible changes in the environment, including the actions of other agents. We introduce a general definition of side effects, based on relative reachability of states compared to a default state, that avoids these undesirable incentives. Using a set of gridworld experiments illustrating relevant scenarios, we empirically compare relative reachability to penalties based on existing definitions and show that it is the only penalty among those tested that produces the desired behavior in all the scenarios.

According to Dennett, the same system may be described using a `physical' (mechanical) explanatory stance, or using an `intentional' (belief- and goal-based) explanatory stance. Humans tend to find the physical stance more helpful for certain systems, such as planets orbiting a star, and the intentional stance for others, such as living animals. We define a formal counterpart of physical and intentional stances within computational theory: a description of a system as either a device, or an agent, with the key difference being that `devices' are directly described in terms of an input-output mapping, while `agents' are described in terms of the function they optimise. Bayes' rule can then be applied to calculate the subjective probability of a system being a device or an agent, based only on its behaviour. We illustrate this using the trajectories of an object in a toy grid-world domain.

No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward MDP. Traditional RL methods fare poorly in CRMDPs, even under strong simplifying assumptions and when trying to compensate for the possibly corrupt rewards. Two ways around the problem are investigated. First, by giving the agent richer data, such as in inverse reinforcement learning and semi-supervised reinforcement learning, reward corruption stemming from systematic sensory errors may sometimes be completely managed. Second, by using randomisation to blunt the agent's optimisation, reward corruption can be partially managed under some assumptions.

We discuss a variant of Thompson sampling for nonparametric reinforcement learning in a countable classes of general stochastic environments. These environments can be non-Markov, non-ergodic, and partially observable. We show that Thompson sampling learns the environment class in the sense that (1) asymptotically its value converges to the optimal value in mean and (2) given a recoverability assumption regret is sublinear.