ML Interview Q Series: How can cost functions be adapted in reinforcement learning policy-gradient methods when rewards are sparse or delayed, and why might adding “shaped” or auxiliary losses help?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Dense shaping rewards can speed up training but risk changing the optimal policy

Comprehensive Explanation

Adapting cost functions in reinforcement learning (RL) policy-gradient methods to handle sparse or delayed rewards often involves incorporating additional techniques that help the agent receive more frequent or more directly interpretable feedback. When rewards are extremely sparse, the policy gradient can have a very high variance because successful trajectories occur infrequently. This makes it difficult to estimate the gradient of the expected return. Delayed rewards exacerbate this because the agent does not have immediate signals about which actions led to positive or negative outcomes. Introducing shaping rewards or auxiliary losses can address these issues by providing supplemental learning signals that guide the policy in the direction of better behaviors.

One common mathematical representation for policy gradients involves optimizing an objective function that is the expectation of the discounted return. The core formula for the policy gradient update in a simple vanilla policy gradient can be written in a single-episode context as

where θ are the parameters of the policy, a_t is the action taken at time t, s_t is the state at time t, pi_theta(a_t|s_t) is the probability of taking action a_t in state s_t under policy parameters θ, and G_t is the return (i.e., discounted sum of future rewards) from time t onward. This formula shows that when the rewards are sparse or delayed, G_t might be zero (or nearly zero) for long stretches, leading to noisy or weak gradient estimates. Hence, shaping or auxiliary losses can improve signal-to-noise ratio.

Shaping rewards typically involve adding an extra reward component that is more dense or directly tied to sub-goals. An example might be awarding a small reward for moving closer to a goal position or accomplishing intermediate steps. The challenge is to ensure that these shaping rewards do not override or distort the original objective. For instance, if you give a small reward for any forward movement, the agent might learn a policy that only moves forward in a loop without actually completing the ultimate objective. A carefully designed shaping reward is often potential-based, meaning it is derived from a function that depends only on the state, so that it does not alter the optimal policy. However, it can significantly speed up learning by reducing variance in gradient estimates.

Auxiliary losses can also serve as an alternate learning signal. For example, you might include a self-supervised prediction task (e.g., predicting the next state or some latent representation of the environment) so that even when rewards are zero, the agent still has a meaningful objective to learn better representations of the environment. This helps the policy extract useful features and can make it more robust and better able to take advantage of the sparse reward when it eventually arrives.

Using shaping or auxiliary losses thus makes training more stable and faster converging, but it requires careful design and domain knowledge to avoid changing the true optimal policy or inadvertently making learning worse.

Potential Follow-up Questions

Could you explain potential-based reward shaping in more detail, and why it does not alter the optimal policy?

Potential-based reward shaping is a technique where the shaping reward is the difference of a potential function between consecutive states. The potential function is usually defined as some function of the state that captures how promising or close it is to the final objective. By using the difference of potentials between the new state and the previous state, we ensure that over the course of an entire trajectory, the sum of shaping rewards is zero if we end in the same potential. This avoids creating cycles or loops that artificially inflate returns, so the optimal policy remains the same as it would without shaping. The main intuition is that the shaping rewards only provide a helpful gradient signal in the short term while not changing the long-term return.

How do policy-gradient methods deal with delayed rewards using variance-reduction techniques?

Methods such as advantage functions (e.g., A2C, A3C, or PPO) often subtract a baseline from the return to reduce variance. The advantage function basically estimates how much better or worse a particular action was compared to an average action in that state. By centering the return around a baseline, the updates become more stable. In cases of delayed reward, this can still be challenging, but advantage-based methods partially mitigate the issue by focusing on the difference between actual returns and expected returns, which can help the agent more consistently learn which actions contributed positively or negatively even when the final reward comes much later.

What is an example of an auxiliary task you might add, and how is it implemented in practice?

A common auxiliary task in RL is reward prediction or next-state prediction. For instance, you could train a neural network that, given the current state s_t and action a_t, predicts the next state s_{t+1} or the immediate reward r_{t+1}. Even if the main environment rewards are sparse, this task provides a dense signal. In practice, you would add an auxiliary head to the network, which outputs the predicted next state or predicted reward. The model’s loss would be the sum of the standard policy gradient loss and this prediction loss. You would backpropagate through the combined loss so the shared layers in the policy network learn informative features that make both tasks easier to solve.

import torch
import torch.nn as nn
import torch.optim as optim

class PolicyNetwork(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, state_dim, action_dim):
        super(PolicyNetwork, self).__init__()
        self.shared_layers = nn.Sequential(
            nn.Linear(state_dim, 128),
            nn.ReLU(),
            nn.Linear(128, 128),
            nn.ReLU(),
        )
        self.policy_head = nn.Linear(128, action_dim)
        self.value_head = nn.Linear(128, 1)
        self.aux_reward_head = nn.Linear(128, 1)  # Example of an auxiliary head

    def forward(self, state):
        features = self.shared_layers(state)
        policy_logits = self.policy_head(features)
        state_value = self.value_head(features)
        predicted_reward = self.aux_reward_head(features)  # The auxiliary output
        return policy_logits, state_value, predicted_reward

# Typical usage
# states, actions, rewards, next_states = ...
# compute policy loss, value loss
# auxiliary_loss = some loss function between predicted_reward and actual_reward
# total_loss = policy_loss + value_loss + auxiliary_loss
# then backward and step the optimizer

When the agent receives sparse rewards from the environment, it can still learn coherent representations of states and transitions through the auxiliary prediction task. Over time, this helps the policy perform better when the actual delayed reward arrives because the network has learned more about environment dynamics.

Can shaping be detrimental in some situations, and how would you mitigate these issues?

Shaping can be detrimental when it inadvertently leads the agent to exploit the shaping reward rather than accomplishing the ultimate goal. One classic example is giving a shaping reward for being close to the goal, and the agent learns to oscillate or remain in a region that yields a constant shaping reward but does not actually solve the task. To mitigate these issues, one approach is to use potential-based reward shaping so that the sum of shaping rewards does not change the optimal policy. Another approach is to carefully tune or anneal the shaping reward over time. As the agent becomes more proficient, the weight of shaping rewards can be reduced, ensuring that the ultimate extrinsic objective becomes the primary driver of behavior.

Why do sparse or delayed rewards cause high variance in policy-gradient estimates?

Sparse or delayed rewards cause many trajectories to have the same return (often zero) until a goal is reached. When almost all returns are zero, the gradient estimates become dominated by rare successful trajectories. This can lead to very large fluctuations in the estimated gradient, prolonging learning. Additionally, the agent may fail to discover rare successful trajectories without adequate exploration. Adding shaping rewards or auxiliary tasks helps because it creates more gradient signals throughout the episode, preventing the agent from relying entirely on those rare successful rollouts to adjust its policy.

What are other solutions, besides reward shaping, to handle sparse or delayed rewards?

Several strategies exist:

One is to use algorithms that explicitly encourage exploration, such as entropy-based exploration or curiosity-driven exploration methods. Curiosity-driven methods give an intrinsic reward when the agent encounters novel or unexplored states.

Another approach is hierarchical RL. By decomposing tasks into sub-tasks, each sub-task can be rewarded for intermediate achievements, effectively addressing the sparse reward at a higher level.

Additionally, off-policy methods can replay past experiences, potentially discovering trajectories that yield reward even if they are initially rare. Techniques like Hindsight Experience Replay can help an agent learn from unsuccessful trajectories by relabeling goals, making reward signals more frequent.

All of these strategies share the general idea of trying to make the agent’s learning signal more frequent or more meaningful so it can efficiently learn long-term behaviors even if the ultimate reward is sparse or delayed.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How do partial observability and hidden states affect the design of shaping rewards and auxiliary losses?

When the environment is partially observable, the agent does not have direct access to the underlying true state. Shaping rewards or auxiliary tasks that rely on state-specific knowledge can be misleading if the agent only observes a fragment of the full situation. If the shaping function depends on information hidden from the agent, it may encourage behaviors that do not align with the actual goal or that cannot be consistently replicated in different hidden states. In practice, you would want any shaping function to be derivable from the agent’s own observations or from a belief state that captures relevant history. Similarly, auxiliary tasks that predict aspects of the next hidden state must be trained with consistent partial-observation assumptions or a recurrent architecture (like an LSTM) to accurately learn from the available information.

One real-world edge case is where partial observability causes the agent to adopt a short-sighted policy just to optimize a shaping signal (e.g., picking up a small immediate shaping reward) at the expense of missing a larger delayed reward. Properly designed shaping should not lure an agent into local maxima that appear beneficial given limited information but are suboptimal from the perspective of the true state sequence. Domain knowledge about hidden states or using recurrent neural networks can mitigate these pitfalls, ensuring shaping nudges the agent in the right direction without misleading it.

When might auxiliary tasks conflict with the main RL objective, and how can that conflict be managed?

Auxiliary tasks can inadvertently direct the feature learning in a way that conflicts with maximizing reward. For instance, if an auxiliary task is to predict state transitions precisely, the agent might allocate excessive capacity to modeling fine-grained environment details irrelevant to the main goal. This conflict can slow down learning or degrade policy performance. Additionally, if the network invests too much effort into optimizing auxiliary losses, it may neglect the primary return-based objective.

To manage this conflict, practitioners typically introduce a weighting factor that scales the auxiliary loss relative to the RL loss. By tuning this weighting factor, one ensures that the main objective remains the central driver. A common approach is to begin training with a moderate emphasis on auxiliary tasks to help the agent learn useful representations and gradually reduce this weighting as the policy starts converging to good performance. Another approach is to adopt a scheduling scheme or use uncertainty-based weighting, where the network invests more in auxiliary tasks only when they yield valuable information or reduce overall uncertainty, thereby minimizing negative interference with the main task.

How can shaping rewards inadvertently create perverse incentives or reward hacking behaviors, and how do you detect and prevent them?

One classic pitfall of shaping is reward hacking, where the agent exploits a loophole in the shaping function to accumulate shaping reward while ignoring or undermining the true goal. For example, if the shaping reward is proportional to how quickly the agent moves, the agent might circle around aimlessly at high speed to maximize shaping reward. This typically happens when the shaping function fails to penalize obviously unhelpful behaviors or does not align strongly enough with the end objective.

To detect these issues, you can monitor divergence between the agent’s performance on the shaping reward function and the agent’s actual objective performance. A sudden improvement in shaping-based metrics without a corresponding improvement in the genuine metric is a red flag. You might also employ adversarial testing by simulating edge cases where the agent receives a high shaping reward but performs poorly on the real task. Preventing such problems often involves revising the shaping scheme to be potential-based, adding negative rewards for explicitly detrimental behaviors, or using multiple shaping terms so that no single dimension of behavior can be exploited to the detriment of the main goal.

Does the addition of shaping rewards or auxiliary losses complicate hyperparameter tuning, and what strategies exist for managing this complexity?

Yes, shaping rewards and auxiliary losses introduce additional hyperparameters that control their scale and form. These extra hyperparameters can complicate tuning because you now need to balance the original reward objective with one or more secondary objectives. For example, if the shaping reward is too large relative to the extrinsic reward, the agent may optimize mostly for shaping. If an auxiliary task’s loss weight is too high, the agent might focus excessively on that auxiliary objective.

Common strategies for handling this complexity include: • Grid or random search over a narrower, domain-informed range of hyperparameters. • Automated hyperparameter optimization methods (e.g., Bayesian optimization). • Curriculum strategies: start with a higher weighting on shaping or auxiliary tasks to guide initial exploration and reduce it once a certain performance threshold is reached. • Using domain knowledge to establish an upper bound on shaping or auxiliary loss weighting.

Real-world pitfalls happen when you do not carefully log or evaluate how changes in these hyperparameters affect the agent’s actual performance. Without meticulous experimentation, you might see short-term gains that fail to generalize or lead to suboptimal long-term behavior.

How do multi-agent environments alter the dynamics of shaping rewards, and what special considerations arise?

In multi-agent environments, shaping rewards or auxiliary signals can influence collective behavior and potentially cause detrimental competition or collusion. For instance, if each agent receives a shaping reward for achieving a personal sub-goal, they might learn to ignore cooperative strategies that yield higher collective rewards. Conversely, shaping that encourages cooperation might cause unintended side effects if not all agents adhere to the same shaping function.

Another complication arises because the environment becomes partly non-stationary from each agent’s perspective—each agent’s actions alter the environment for others. This dynamic can invalidate shaping approaches that assume a relatively stable reward structure. A carefully designed shaping reward in a single-agent context may become ineffective or counterproductive in a multi-agent setting. Techniques like potential-based shaping can mitigate some of these issues if the potential function is defined in a way that respects multi-agent interactions, for example by referencing a joint state or distribution of states across agents.

In what ways can environment non-stationarity (e.g., due to evolving dynamics or real-world changes) undermine the benefits of shaping and auxiliary losses?

When the environment changes over time (due to external factors or the agent’s own interventions that alter the task dynamics), shaping rewards and auxiliary tasks learned from earlier data may no longer be aligned with the present reality. For example, if the environment transitions are drastically different after some physical change in a real-world system, an auxiliary next-state prediction task trained in the old regime might degrade or become irrelevant. The shaping reward structure might also become outdated, giving misleading feedback.

Such non-stationarity can reduce the effectiveness of the shaping or even harm performance if the agent trusts an obsolete shaping function. To address this, you can implement continual or lifelong learning approaches that adapt shaping and auxiliary-task parameters over time. If there is a known phase change or domain shift, you might reset or recalibrate shaping signals, or use meta-learning techniques that quickly adapt shaping or auxiliary-objective weighting after distribution shifts. You might also keep a rolling buffer of recent experiences to retrain or fine-tune the shaping model.

How do you evaluate policy performance that includes shaping rewards or auxiliary tasks to ensure the “true” objective is met?

One of the biggest challenges with adding shaping rewards and auxiliary tasks is that the agent might learn to optimize those signals at the expense of the true objective. Therefore, it is essential to measure the agent’s performance strictly using the original extrinsic reward (i.e., the environment’s core success criterion) without adding shaping or auxiliary terms to that metric. That means, even though shaping rewards appear during training, they are not used at evaluation time when measuring final performance.

A best practice is to periodically test the agent in a pure environment setting where shaping or auxiliary signals are absent, ensuring that the agent’s actions still yield the intended outcome. If shaping was potential-based, the agent’s performance in this zero-shaping environment should remain optimal if the shaping was designed correctly. Real-world pitfalls include situations where an agent seems to do well on shaped metrics but fails catastrophically when tested on the genuine objective. Frequent evaluation on the unshaped objective is crucial to catch these discrepancies early.