mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning Preferences for Interactive Autonomy

arXiv 2210.10899 ↗First posted 19 Oct 2022cs.RO cs.AI cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When robots enter everyday human environments, they need to understand their tasks and how they should perform those tasks. To encode these, reward functions, which specify the objective of a robot, are employed. However, designing reward functions can be extremely challenging for complex tasks and environments. A promising approach is to learn reward functions from humans. Recently, several robot learning works embrace this approach and leverage human demonstrations to learn the reward functions. Known as inverse reinforcement learning, this approach relies on a fundamental assumption: humans can provide near-optimal demonstrations to the robot. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case: human demonstrations to the robot are often suboptimal due to various reasons, e.g., difficulty of teleoperation, robot having high degrees of freedom, or humans' cognitive limitations. This thesis is an attempt towards learning reward functions from human users by using other, more reliable data modalities. Specifically, we study how reward functions can be learned using comparative feedback, in which the human user compares multiple robot trajectories instead of (or in addition to) providing demonstrations. To this end, we first propose various forms of comparative feedback, e.g., pairwise comparisons, best-of-many choices, rankings, scaled comparisons; and describe how a robot can use these various forms of human feedback to infer a reward function, which may be parametric or non-parametric. Next, we propose active learning techniques to enable the robot to ask for comparison feedback that optimizes for the expected information that will be gained from that user feedback. Finally, we demonstrate the applicability of our methods in a wide variety of domains, ranging from autonomous driving simulations to home robotics, from standard reinforcement learning benchmarks to lower-body exoskeletons.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 226 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2022.

Builds on

21 of 226 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  2. 2013Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 3,211
  3. 2016OpenAI Gymcited by 1,684
  4. 2015Safe Controller Optimization for Quadrotors with Gaussian Processescited by 77
  5. 2018Hierarchical Game-Theoretic Planning for Autonomous Vehiclescited by 48
  6. 2019Batch Active Learning Using Determinantal Point Processescited by 42
  7. 2021Learning from Imperfect Demonstrations from Agents with Varying Dynamicscited by 26
  8. 2021Human irrationality: both bad and good for reward inferencecited by 25
  9. 2014Dissimilarity-based Sparse Subset Selectioncited by 18
  10. 2018Learning from Richer Human Guidance: Augmenting Comparison-Based Learning with Feature Queriescited by 16
  11. 2019The Green Choice: Learning and Influencing Human Decisions on Shared Roadscited by 14
  12. 2016Characterizing Driving Styles with Deep Learningcited by 13
9 more
  1. 2019Learning an Urban Air Mobility Encounter Model from Expert Preferencescited by 12
  2. 2018Learning Constraints from Demonstrationscited by 9
  3. 2020Interactive Robot Training for Non-Markov Taskscited by 9
  4. 2021Preference-based Learning of Reward Function Featurescited by 9
  5. 2022Leveraging Smooth Attention Prior for Multi-Agent Trajectory Predictioncited by 9
  6. 2018Altruistic Autonomy: Beating Congestion on Shared Roadscited by 7
  7. 2021Incentivizing Efficient Equilibria in Traffic Networks with Mixed Autonomycited by 3
  8. 2018Do You Want Your Autonomous Car To Drive Like You?cited by 1
  9. 2022How do people incorporate advice from artificial agents when making physical judgments?cited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2019Learning Reward Functions by Integrating Human Demonstrations and Preferences
  2. 2022Unified Learning from Demonstrations, Corrections, and Preferences during Physical Human-Robot Interaction
  3. 2020Feature Expansive Reward Learning: Rethinking Human Input
  4. 2020Active Preference-Based Gaussian Process Regression for Reward Learning
  5. 2025When a Robot is More Capable than a Human: Learning from Constrained Demonstrators
  6. 2020Learning from Suboptimal Demonstration via Self-Supervised Reward Regression
  7. 2022Autonomous Assessment of Demonstration Sufficiency via Bayesian Inverse Reinforcement Learning
  8. 2025Reinforcement Learning from Multi-level and Episodic Human Feedback