mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Improving Reward Design in RL: A Reward Alignment Metric for RL Practitioners

arXiv 2503.05996 ↗First posted 8 Mar 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning agents are fundamentally limited by the quality of the reward functions they learn from, yet reward design is often overlooked under the assumption that a well-defined reward is readily available. However, in practice, designing rewards is difficult, and even when specified, evaluating their correctness is equally problematic: how do we know if a reward function is correctly specified? In our work, we address these challenges by focusing on reward alignment -- assessing whether a reward function accurately encodes the preferences of a human stakeholder. As a concrete measure of reward alignment, we introduce the Trajectory Alignment Coefficient to quantify the similarity between a human stakeholder's ranking of trajectory distributions and those induced by a given reward function. We show that the Trajectory Alignment Coefficient exhibits desirable properties, such as not requiring access to a ground truth reward, invariance to potential-based reward shaping, and applicability to online RL. Additionally, in an 11 -- person user study of RL practitioners, we found that access to the Trajectory Alignment Coefficient during reward selection led to statistically significant improvements. Compared to relying only on reward functions, our metric reduced cognitive workload by 1.5x, was preferred by 82% of users and increased the success rate of selecting reward functions that produced performant policies by 41%.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2025.

Builds on

10 of 18 references.

References · 10

  1. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
  2. 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
  3. 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 300
  4. 2023Large Language Model Alignment: A Surveycited by 243
  5. 2021Reward (Mis)design for Autonomous Drivingcited by 104
  6. 2020Quantifying Differences in Reward Functionscited by 63
  7. 2023A Survey of Temporal Credit Assignment in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 59
  8. 2022Settling the Reward Hypothesiscited by 33
  9. 2020Value Alignment Verificationcited by 20
  10. 2022Dynamics-Aware Comparison of Learned Reward Functionscited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 9.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Similarity as Reward Alignment: Robust and Versatile Preference-based Reinforcement Learning
  2. 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction
  3. 2023Behavior Alignment via Reward Function Optimization
  4. 2026Aligning Agents via Planning: A Benchmark for Trajectory-Level Reward Modeling
  5. 2025A Survey on Progress in LLM Alignment from the Perspective of Reward Design
  6. 2025From Demonstrations to Rewards: Alignment Without Explicit Human Preferences
  7. 2025Repairing Reward Functions with Feedback to Mitigate Reward Hacking
  8. 2026Hierarchical Reward Design from Language: Enhancing Alignment of Agent Behavior with Human Specifications