Game-Theoretic Robust Reinforcement Learning Handles Temporally-Coupled Perturbations
Yongyuan Liang, Yanchao Sun, Ruijie Zheng, Xiangyu Liu, Benjamin Eysenbach, Tuomas Sandholm, Furong Huang, Stephen Marcus McAleer
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — We introduce a temporally-coupled adversary considering the temporal coupling between perturbations over time and propose a game-theoretic response approach for adversarial defense against these adversaries.
Abstract
Deploying reinforcement learning (RL) systems requires robustness to uncertainty and model misspecification, yet prior robust RL methods typically only study noise introduced independently across time. However, practical sources of uncertainty are usually coupled across time. We formally introduce temporally-coupled perturbations, presenting a novel challenge for existing robust RL methods. To tackle this challenge, we propose GRAD, a novel game-theoretic approach that treats the temporally-coupled robust RL problem as a partially-observable two-player zero-sum game. By finding an approximate equilibrium within this game, GRAD optimizes for general robustness against temporally-coupled perturbations. Experiments on continuous control tasks demonstrate that, compared with prior methods, our approach achieves a higher degree of robustness to various types of attacks on different attack domains, both in settings with temporally-coupled perturbations and decoupled perturbations.
Author context
Most prolific author: 20 submissions (credibility 0.10).
Delta if applied: -2.0 percentile
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 32 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 47% of matchups.
- ▼ lost to Multimodal Molecular Pretraining via Modal… ×4
- ▲ beat MIND: Masked and Inverse Dynamics Modeling… ×4
- ▲ beat Decoupled Actor-Critic ×4
- ▲ beat PASTA: Pretrained Action-State Transformer… ×4
- ▼ lost to Effective pruning of web-scale datasets ba… ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)