Reward Structure Shapes the Interaction Between Episodic Exploration and Neural Memory in Reinforcement Learning
Jai Malegaonkar, Rohan Patil, Henrik I. Christensen
cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-05
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: In partially observable reinforcement learning, agents face a dual bottleneck: they must explore to encounter rewarding states and retain that experience in memory to optimize their policies.
Terminology
Abstract
In partially observable reinforcement learning, agents face a dual bottleneck: they must explore to encounter rewarding states and retain that experience in memory to optimize their policies. Exploration bonuses and memory architectures are traditionally evaluated in isolation, leaving their interaction unmeasured, and standard notions of sparse reward conflate temporal signal density with what the reward actually supervises. We present a controlled study crossing episodic exploration bonuses with diverse neural memory architectures across three environments that vary how the content of memory is acquired. An identical bonus signal yields three distinct interaction patterns: it amplifies architectural capacity differences where memory content must be actively discovered and retained unsupervised; equalizes architectures to a shared ceiling where the content, once sought out, is a single reward-supervised cue; and is null where the observation stream is purely scheduled. Controlled reward manipulations verify that these patterns track reward structure rather than density: a dense reward neutralizes a bonus only if it directly supervises the required latent memory, and a small avoidable penalty on exploratory actions (leaving the optimum unchanged) induces policy convergence to suboptimal stationary states, which either bonus resolves. We then formalize reward sparsity with observation-anchored reward machines, separating structural sparsity (an automaton reproduces the return without the task-required history) from potential sparsity (the one-step reward misprices local exploratory actions); the resulting vocabulary organizes the three regimes by the retention burden each task exposes. Together, these results show exploration and memory are complements, not substitutes: a bonus induces exposure, and only memory converts exposure into return.
Sources
- Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces
- The impact of intrinsic rewards on exploration in Reinforcement Learning
- BAMDP Shaping: a Unified Framework for Intrinsic Motivation and Reward Shaping
- RLBenchNet: The Right Network for the Right Reinforcement Learning Task
- RLeXplore: Accelerating Research in Intrinsically-Motivated Reinforcement Learning
Related papers
- Polynomial-Augmented Neural Networks (PANNs) with Weak Orthogonality Constraints for Enhanced Function and PDE Approximation
- AIRL-S: Unifying Reinforcement Learning and Search-Based Test-Time Scaling via Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning
- Transformers as Bayesian In-Context Experimenters: Smoothness-Adaptive Efficient ATE Estimation
- Convergence issues in Relational Concept Analysis based on AOC-posets
- Beliefs Beyond Posteriors: The Predictive Cost of ELBO Binding
- Understanding Diffusion Models via Ratio-Based Function Approximation with SignReLU Networks