# Runtime Verification of Learning Properties for Reinforcement Learning Algorithms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09811 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09811/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.5602/) (2013)
- [Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.01815/) (2017)
- [Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.01541/) (2016)
- [Neurosymbolic Reinforcement Learning with Formally Verified Exploration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.12612/) (2020)
- [Verifiably Safe Exploration for End-to-End Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.01223/) (2020)
- [Generalizing from a few environments in safety-critical reinforcement learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.01475/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [COOL-MC: Verifying and Explaining RL Policies for Platelet Inventory Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.02396/) (2026)
- [COOL-MC: Verifying and Explaining RL Policies for Multi-bridge Network Maintenance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07546/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms interact with their environment in a trial-and-error fashion. Such interactions can be expensive, inefficient, and timely when learning on a physical system rather than in a simulation. This work develops new runtime verification techniques to predict when the learning phase has not met or will not meet qualitative and timely expectations. This paper presents three verification properties concerning the quality and timeliness of learning in RL algorithms. With each property, we propose design steps for monitoring and assessing the properties during the system's operation.