Paper:
Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Locally Consistent Reward Functions
Existing inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) algorithms have assumed each expert's demonstrated trajectory to be produced by only a single reward function. This paper presents a novel generalization of the IRL problem that allows each trajectory to be generated by multiple locally consistent reward functions, hence catering to more realistic and complex experts' behaviors. Solving our generalized IRL problem thus involves not only learning these reward functions but also the stochastic transitions between them at any state (including unvisited states). By representing our IRL problem with a probabilistic graphical model, an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm can be devised to iteratively learn the different reward functions and the stochastic transitions between them in order to jointly improve the likelihood of the expert's demonstrated trajectories. As a result, the most likely partition of a trajectory into segments that are generated from different locally consistent reward functions selected by EM can be derived. Empirical evaluation on synthetic and real-world datasets shows that our IRL algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art EM clustering with maximum likelihood IRL, which is, interestingly, a reduced variant of our approach.

Review:
The authors propose an IRL method that learns locally consistent reward functions from expert demonstrations. To do so, they suppose the existence of a transition function for switching between reward functions which depends on the rewards and the current state and allows them to build a graphical model of their problem.Their algorithm consists in maximizing the log-likelihood of the expert's demonstrated trajectories depending on some parameters which are the original distributions of states and rewards, the local rewards and the transition function between rewards. To do so, they use the expectation-maximisation (EM) method. Then, via the Viterbi algorithm, they are able to partition the trajectories into segments with local consistent rewards.Strengths of the paper:1. The authors leverage existing and classical methods from the machine learning and optimization fields such as EM, Viterbi, Value iteration and gradient ascent in order to build their algorithm. This will allow the community to easily reproduce their results. 2. The experiments are conducted on synthetic and real-world data. They compare their method to MLIRL which does not use locally consistent rewards and which is the canonical choice to compare to as their algorithm is a generalization of MLIRL. The results presented show the superiority of their method over MLIRL. 3. The idea presented by the authors is original as far as I know.Weaknesses of the paper:1. The paper is very dense ( the figures are incorporated in the text) which makes the reading difficult. 2. The algorithm proposed needs the knowledge of the dynamics and the number of rewards. The authors, as future works, plan to extend their algorithm to unknown number of rewards, however they do not mention to get rid off the knowledge of the dynamics. Could the authors comment on that as some IRL algorithms do not need a perfect knowledge of the dynamics? 3. The method needs to solve iteratively MDPs when learning the reward functions. For each theta in the gradient ascent a MDP needs to be solved. Is this prohibitive for huge MDPs? Is there a way to avoid that step? The action-value function Q is defined via a softmax operator in order to have a derivable policy, does it allow to solve more efficiently the MDP? 4. The authors are using gradient ascent in the EM method, could they comment on the concavity of their criteria? 5. In the experiments (gridworlds), the number of features for the states is very small and thus it is understandable that a reward which is linear on the features will perform badly. Do the authors consider comparing their method to an IRL method where the number of features defining the states is greater? This is the main problem that I have with the experiments, the features used are not expressive enough to consider using a classical IRL method and this can explain why MLIRL performs badly and that its performance does not improve when the number of expert trajectories grows. 6. The performance is measured by the average log-likelihood of the expert's demonstrated trajectories which is the criterion maximized by the algorithm. I think that a more pertinent measure would be the value function of the policy produced by the optimization of the reward obtained by the algorithm. Could the authors comment on that and explain why their performance metric is more appropriate?Summary: This paper presents a new idea consisting in learning locally consistent rewards in order to solve the IRL problem. The method is original and relies on classical machine learning methods. However, I have some concerns on the efficiency of the method for large MDPs and when the dynamics is not provided.