Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

SHARPIE: A Modular Framework for Reinforcement Learning and Human-AI Interaction Experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SHARPIE is a modular platform that wraps standard reinforcement-learning environments into web-based experiments where humans and AI agents can interact, aiming to become the standard interface for human-in-the-loop RL research.

desk verdict A plausible early-stage framework proposal with honest limitations, but the 'generic standard' claim is underspecified and unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19245 v2 pith:KNUD4W4Y submitted 2025-01-31 cs.AI cs.HC

Hüseyin Ayd{i}n , Kevin Godin-Dubois , Libio Goncalvez Braz , Floris den Hengst , Kim Baraka , Mustafa Mert Çelikok , Andreas Sauter , Shihan Wang
show 1 more author
Frans A. Oliehoek
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords reinforcementlearninghuman-AIinteractionexperimentplatformmodularframeworkwebinterfacehumanfeedbackmulti-agentsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes SHARPIE, a modular software framework that lets researchers run experiments in which humans interact with reinforcement learning agents. The core claim is that a single generic interface, built by wrapping the widely used Gymnasium environment API and adding a web-based participant front-end, can support a broad range of interaction patterns including human feedback, demonstrations, action delegation, preference elicitation, and shared decision-making. A sympathetic reading is that the framework aims to become for human-in-the-loop RL what the Gymnasium API became for simulated RL: a common standard that makes experiments easier to build, compare, and reproduce. The framework is under active development, so the paper's contribution is the architecture and a set of motivating use cases rather than a completed evaluation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the generic interface for human-RL interactions. Concretely, SHARPIE wraps environments that implement the conventional Gymnasium API (reset, step, render) so that the environment can be driven either by an RL algorithm or by a human participant through a browser-based front-end. Around that wrapper, the framework provides pluggable communication channels for coordination and teaching, a preference-elicitation module for ranking trajectories and policies, and utilities for logging and deployment to cloud servers. The wrapper is what does the work: it converts a rich human-agent interaction into the step/reset loop that RL algorithms already expect, so existing environments and algorithms can be reused without modification.

What would settle it

Set up the paper's 'human-AI teaming' use case using only SHARPIE's public API and prebuilt UI components, with bidirectional communication of intentions in a simple-tag environment. If implementing the intention channel requires modifying the environment source or writing new backend middleware beyond configuration, then the claim of a generic interface for human-RL interactions fails for that mode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the missing piece in current reinforcement-learning tooling is not another environment or algorithm library, but a generic interaction layer between humans and agents. SHARPIE supplies that layer by encapsulating any environment that follows the conventional Gymnasium API (reset, step, render) and connecting it to a multimodal web interface for participants. The authors argue that this design covers a wide range of human-AI interaction scenarios, including interactive reward specification, learning from human feedback, action delegation, preference elicitation, user modeling, and human-AI teaming, and that it lays the foundation for a standard in human-in-the-loop RL, just as Gymnasium standardized fully simulated environments.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that wrapping any environment that follows the standard reset–step–render API is enough to cover the range of human-AI interaction modes it promises; if real studies require deep per-use-case engineering, the generic standard will not materialize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can set up human-RL experiments using existing Gymnasium-compatible environments without building custom interfaces, lowering the barrier to studying human-AI interaction.
  • A shared interaction layer makes results from different labs more directly comparable, since the experimental setup would share the same infrastructure.
  • The platform can serve as a simulator for human-robot interaction studies before physical deployment, as the paper notes.
  • Because the wrapper extends to multi-agent and multi-objective environments, the same framework can host studies from a single human with one agent to multiple stakeholders sharing a decision.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the standard is adopted, SHARPIE could become a common substrate for cognitive-science studies of human-AI collaboration, allowing researchers to reuse one interaction layer to investigate trust, theory of mind, and language grounding.
  • Editorial inference: the reliance on the Gymnasium API means any interaction pattern that cannot be expressed as discrete reset/step cycles, such as continuous real-time coordination or free-form dialogue, will require custom extensions; the framework's generality may be bounded by that wrapper.
  • Editorial inference: a direct stress test would be to implement all eight use cases from the paper on the current public API; any use case that needs new backend middleware or environment patches shows where the generic interface stops.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes SHARPIE, a Python-based web framework intended to support experiments in which humans interact with reinforcement learning (RL) agents. It motivates the platform with eight use cases spanning reward annotation, exploration, teaching, action delegation, task specification, human-AI teaming, utility elicitation, and shared decision support. The envisioned architecture combines a wrapper for RL environments and algorithm libraries, a web-based participant interface, logging utilities, and deployment support for cloud and recruitment platforms. The paper positions SHARPIE as a generic interface that could standardize human-RL interaction experiments, analogous to the role of the Gymnasium API for fully simulated RL. The text also reviews related RL, behavioral-experiment, and multi-agent platforms and includes an appendix that compares popular RL packages and their APIs. No implementation, interface specification, runnable example, or experimental validation is provided.

Significance. SHARPIE addresses a genuine gap: there is no widely adopted platform for controlled experiments that combine human participants with RL agents across many interaction modes. The use-case table is a useful structuring of the problem space, and the decision to build on existing RL libraries and to include logging and deployment utilities is pragmatically motivated. If the framework were implemented and validated, it could reduce the engineering burden of human-in-the-loop RL research and improve comparability across studies. The connection to cognitive-science questions (theory of mind, trust, communication grounding) is a strength. However, the paper's central contribution is currently a design proposal: the generic interface that underpins the standardization claim is not defined, and no evidence is presented that the framework actually works for any of the listed use cases.

major comments (4)
  1. [SHARPIE Framework] The central claim that SHARPIE provides a 'generic interface for human-RL interactions' is never made concrete. The paper does not specify the interface: there is no description of the methods exposed by the environment wrapper, the message schemas or data types exchanged over communication channels, the lifecycle of a human-in-the-loop episode, or the semantics of actions such as delegation, feedback, and task specification. Figure 1 shows blocks but no protocols. Without this specification, the assertion that any Gymnasium-style environment can be encapsulated and that the eight motivating use cases are supported is not checkable.
  2. [Motivating Use Cases; SHARPIE Framework] The paper's own statements undermine the present-tense framework claim. It says the library 'is currently under active development,' that only some of the listed use cases 'will be implemented initially,' and that communication modalities 'will be expanded upon.' These are prospective statements about a plan, not a description of an existing artifact. As written, the paper cannot support the claim that SHARPIE 'provides' a generic interface or that it 'aims to standardize' the field; those claims require at least a specification of the current interface and a statement of which use cases are operational.
  3. [Appendix A; SHARPIE Framework] The compatibility claim that the wrapper 'can encapsulate any existing environment that follows the conventional Gymnasium API' is weakened by the paper's own Appendix A, which classifies several platforms as 'Gymnasium+' with 'minor alterations' such as vectorial rewards (multi-objective) or vectorial actions (multi-agent). The paper does not state whether SHARPIE's reset/step/render wrapper preserves these altered APIs. Since the multi-objective use cases (7 and 8) and multi-agent use cases (3, 4, and 6) depend on exactly those extensions, the claim that SHARPIE encompasses 'most existing RL platforms' is incomplete without a concrete compatibility statement.
  4. [General evaluation] The manuscript contains no empirical or demonstrative validation: no end-to-end example with code, no screenshots, no benchmark results, and no usability or performance measurements. For a framework paper, at least one fully worked use-case walkthrough or a small pilot experiment is necessary to substantiate the claim that SHARPIE 'streamlines' and 'empowers' research. Without such evidence, the reader cannot distinguish a viable architecture from a collection of intended features.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SHARPIE Framework] The phrase 'at worse' should be 'at worst' in the discussion of restarting experiments.
  2. [Related Work] The comparison with Interactive Gym is necessarily vague because both systems are under development, but the paper would benefit from listing concrete architectural differences (e.g., support for non-game interaction modalities, explicit communication channels, multi-stakeholder use cases) rather than the general statement that SHARPIE is 'more generic and extendable.'
  3. [Appendix A] The term 'Gymnasium+' is introduced only in the table footnote; it should be defined and used consistently in the main text, especially since the wrapper compatibility argument depends on it.
  4. [Introduction] The reference to Sutton and Barto (1998) uses the first edition; if the intended citation is the widely used second edition, it should be updated to 2018.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SHARPIE is an architectural proposal with no derivation chain whose outputs are constructed from its inputs.

full rationale

This paper does not derive a result or make a predictive claim; it proposes a software framework and describes its intended design. The central claim that a generic interface can standardize human-RL experiments is an engineering aspiration, not a theorem, a fitted output, or a quantity computed from the paper's own assumptions. The supporting statements about wrapping Gymnasium-style environments and adding web-based communication channels are architectural premises, not conclusions that are equivalent to those premises by construction. The paper's self-citations and co-author citations are used as use-case references, environment examples, and pointers to prior work; none of them is invoked as the sole evidence for the framework's generality. The paper also explicitly states that the library is 'currently under active development' and that communication modalities 'will be expanded,' which confirms that the standardization claim is a goal rather than a circularly validated result. Any concern that the wrapper-plus-web-channel abstraction may be insufficient for the listed interaction modes is a correctness or support critique, not a circularity, because the paper makes no formal derivation that would be self-referential. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation chain. The appropriate circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters and no new theoretical entities. The assumptions above are the load-bearing premises; all other components are existing RL environments and algorithms.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Any environment implementing the Gymnasium API (reset, step, render) can be wrapped to support the intended human-AI interaction patterns.
    In the SHARPIE Framework section, the authors state that encapsulating Gymnasium environments 'encompasses most of the existing RL platforms', which assumes the API is expressive enough for delegation, communication, and shared-goal scenarios.
  • domain assumption A web-based interface with communication channels provides real-time interaction quality adequate for RL experiments.
    The platform is primarily web-based; latency and usability are not tested.
  • domain assumption The research community will adopt a shared interface if one is offered.
    The paper's stated goal is to 'standardize the field'; this presumes collective adoption, which is an open sociological question, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SHARPIE: A Modular Framework for Reinforcement Learning and Human-AI Interaction Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNUD4W4Y

@misc{pith2026250119245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SHARPIE: A Modular Framework for Reinforcement Learning and Human-AI Interaction Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNUD4W4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19245}
}
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a general approach for modeling and training AI agents, including human-AI interaction scenarios. In this paper, we propose SHARPIE (Shared Human-AI Reinforcement Learning Platform for Interactive Experiments) to address the need for a generic framework to support experiments with RL agents and humans. Its modular design consists of a versatile wrapper for RL environments and algorithm libraries, a participant-facing web interface, logging utilities, deployment on popular cloud and participant recruitment platforms. It empowers researchers to study a wide variety of research questions related to the interaction between humans and RL agents, including those related to interactive reward specification and learning, learning from human feedback, action delegation, preference elicitation, user-modeling, and human-AI teaming. The platform is based on a generic interface for human-RL interactions that aims to standardize the field of study on RL in human contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19245 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level SHARPIE architecture. to further increase the range of interaction scenarios that SHARPIE can help streamline. The front-end also provides various complementary util￾ities to further smoothen out the experimental processes: from (a)synchronous evaluations of a learning agent to scheduling and management on long-term data storage. In the first case, this takes many forms, such as a preference elicitation m… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Akata, Z.; Balliet, D.; De Rijke, M.; Dignum, F.; Dignum, V.; Eiben, G.; Fokkens, A.; Grossi, D.; Hindriks, K.; Hoos, H.; et al. 2020. A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(8): 18--28

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    A.; and Brinkman, W.-P

    Albers, N.; Neerincx, M. A.; and Brinkman, W.-P. 2022. Addressing people’s current and future states in a reinforcement learning algorithm for persuading to quit smoking and to be physically active. Plos one, 17(12): e0277295

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    N.; Felten, F.; Talbi, E.-G.; Danoy, G.; Now \'e , A.; Bazzan, A

    Alegre, L. N.; Felten, F.; Talbi, E.-G.; Danoy, G.; Now \'e , A.; Bazzan, A. L.; and da Silva, B. C. 2022. MO-Gym: A library of multi-objective reinforcement learning environments. In Proceedings of the 34th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence BNAIC/Benelearn, volume 2022, 2

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Pires, F

    Alexandre S. Pires, F. P. S. 2024. Artificial Agents Facilitate Human Cooperation Through Indirect Reciprocity. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Volume 392: ECAI 2024. IOS Press

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Brockman, G. 2016. OpenAI Gym. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Chang, W.-T.; Wang, S.; Kramer, S.; Oey, M.; and Ben Allouch, S. 2024. Human-Centered AI for Dementia Care: Using Reinforcement Learning for Personalized Interventions Support in Eating and Drinking Scenarios. In HHAI 2024: Hybrid Human AI Systems for the Social Good, 84--93. IOS Press

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    F.; Leike, J.; Brown, T.; Martic, M.; Legg, S.; and Amodei, D

    Christiano, P. F.; Leike, J.; Brown, T.; Martic, M.; Legg, S.; and Amodei, D. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  2. [10]

    Christofi, K.; and Baraka, K. 2024. Uncovering Patterns in Humans that Teach Robots through Demonstrations and Feedback. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 332--336

    2024

  3. [11]

    De Leeuw, J. R. 2015. jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior research methods, 47: 1--12

    2015

  4. [12]

    DeepMind; Babuschkin, I.; Baumli, K.; Bell, A.; Bhupatiraju, S.; Bruce, J.; Buchlovsky, P.; Budden, D.; Cai, T.; Clark, A.; Danihelka, I.; Dedieu, A.; Fantacci, C.; Godwin, J.; Jones, C.; Hemsley, R.; Hennigan, T.; Hessel, M.; Hou, S.; Kapturowski, S.; Keck, T.; Kemaev, I.; Ki...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Den Hengst, F.; Fran c ois-Lavet, V.; Hoogendoorn, M.; and van Harmelen, F. 2022. Reinforcement learning with option machines. In 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, 2909--2915. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence ...

    2022

  6. [14]

    M.; el Hassouni, A.; and Hoogendoorn, M

    Den Hengst, F.; Grua, E. M.; el Hassouni, A.; and Hoogendoorn, M. 2020. Reinforcement learning for personalization: A systematic literature review. Data Science, 3(2): 107--147

    2020

  7. [15]

    N.; Now \'e , A.; Bazzan, A

    Felten, F.; Alegre, L. N.; Now \'e , A.; Bazzan, A. L. C.; Talbi, E. G.; Danoy, G.; and Silva, B. C. d. 2023. A Toolkit for Reliable Benchmarking and Research in Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Syst...

    2023

  8. [16]

    M.; Terry, J

    Felten, F.; Ucak, U.; Azmani, H.; Peng, G.; R \"o pke, W.; Baier, H.; Mannion, P.; Roijers, D. M.; Terry, J. K.; Talbi, E.-G.; et al. 2024. MOMAland: A Set of Benchmarks for Multi-Objective Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning. In Multi-objective Decision Making Workshop at ECAI 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gauci, J.; Conti, E.; Liang, Y.; Virochsiri, K.; He, Y.; Kaden, Z.; Narayanan, V.; Ye, X.; Chen, Z.; and Fujimoto, S. 2019. Horizon: Facebook's open source applied reinforcement learning platform. In ICML 2019 Workshop on RL4RealLife

    2019

  10. [18]

    Godin-Dubois , K.; Miras, K.; and Kononova, A. 2025. AMaze : An Intuitive Benchmark Generator for Fast Prototyping of Generalizable Agents. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, in press

    2025

  11. [19]

    Godin-Dubois , K.; Miras, K.; and Kononova, A. V. 2024. AMaze : A Benchmark Generator for Sighted Maze-Navigating Agents. Journal of Open Source Software, in press

    2024

  12. [20]

    A.; Schultz, A

    Goodrich, M. A.; Schultz, A. C.; et al. 2008. Human--robot interaction: a survey. Foundations and Trends in Human--Computer Interaction , 1(3): 203--275

    2008

  13. [21]

    Green, P.; and Wei-Haas, L. 1985. The Rapid Development of User Interfaces: Experience with the Wizard of OZ Method. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 29(5): 470--474

    1985

  14. [22]

    Hou, M.; Hindriks, K.; Eiben, G.; and Baraka, K. 2024. ``Give Me an Example Like This'': Episodic Active Reinforcement Learning from Demonstrations. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, HAI '24, 287–295. New York, NY, USA: Association...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Huang, S.; Dossa, R. F. J.; Ye, C.; Braga, J.; Chakraborty, D.; Mehta, K.; and Araújo, J. G. 2022. CleanRL: High-quality Single-file Implementations of Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(274): 1--18

    2022

  16. [24]

    T.; Klassen, T

    Icarte, R. T.; Klassen, T. Q.; Valenzano, R.; and McIlraith, S. A. 2022. Reward machines: Exploiting reward function structure in reinforcement learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 73: 173--208

    2022

  17. [25]

    Jara-Ettinger, J. 2019. Theory of mind as inverse reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 29: 105--110

    2019

  18. [26]

    Johnson, M.; Hofmann, K.; Hutton, T.; and Bignell, D. 2016. The Malmo Platform for Artificial Intelligence Experimentation. In Ijcai, volume 16, 4246--4247

    2016

  19. [27]

    H.; Mitra, K.; Desai, K.; Saran, A.; and Baraka, K

    Knierim, M.; Jain, S.; Aydo g an, M. H.; Mitra, K.; Desai, K.; Saran, A.; and Baraka, K. 2024 a . Prosody as a Teaching Signal for Agent Learning: Exploratory Studies and Algorithmic Implications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23554

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H.; Mitra, K

    Knierim, M.; Jain, S.; Aydo g an, M. H.; Mitra, K. D.; Desai, K.; Saran, A.; and Baraka, K. 2024 b . Leveraging Prosody as an Informative Teaching Signal for Agent Learning: Exploratory Studies and Algorithmic Implications. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference o...

    2024

  21. [29]

    B.; and Stone, P

    Knox, W. B.; and Stone, P. 2009. Interactively shaping agents via human reinforcement: The TAMER framework. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Knowledge capture, 9--16

    2009

  22. [30]

    D.; Saeta, B.; Bradbury, J.; Ding, D.; Borgeaud, S.; Lai, M.; Schrittwieser, J.; Anthony, T.; Hughes, E.; Danihelka, I.; and Ryan-Davis, J

    Lanctot, M.; Lockhart, E.; Lespiau, J.-B.; Zambaldi, V.; Upadhyay, S.; P\' e rolat, J.; Srinivasan, S.; Timbers, F.; Tuyls, K.; Omidshafiei, S.; Hennes, D.; Morrill, D.; Muller, P.; Ewalds, T.; Faulkner, R.; Kram\' a r, J.; Vylder, B. D.; Saeta, B.; Bradbury, J.; Ding, D.; Bor...

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Liang, E.; Liaw, R.; Nishihara, R.; Moritz, P.; Fox, R.; Goldberg, K.; Gonzalez, J.; Jordan, M.; and Stoica, I. 2018. RL lib: Abstractions for Distributed Reinforcement Learning. In Dy, J.; and Krause, A., eds., Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learn...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Lowe, R.; Wu, Y.; Tamar, A.; Harb, J.; Abbeel, P.; and Mordatch, I. 2017. Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environments. Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)

    2017

  25. [33]

    McDonald, C. 2024. Interactive Gym. https://github.com/chasemcd/interactive-gym

    2024

  26. [34]

    Moore, A. W. 1990. Efficient memory-based learning for robot control. Technical report, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory

    1990

  27. [35]

    Natarajan, S.; Kunapuli, G.; Judah, K.; Tadepalli, P.; Kersting, K.; and Shavlik, J. 2010. Multi-agent inverse reinforcement learning. In 2010 ninth international conference on machine learning and applications, 395--400. IEEE

    2010

  28. [36]

    Peirce, J. W. 2007. PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of neuroscience methods, 162(1-2): 8--13

    2007

  29. [37]

    Pianosi, F.; Castelletti, A.; and Restelli, M. 2013. Tree-based fitted Q-iteration for multi-objective Markov decision processes in water resource management. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 15(2): 258--270

    2013

  30. [38]

    Raffin, A.; Hill, A.; Gleave, A.; Kanervisto, A.; Ernestus, M.; and Dormann, N. 2021. Stable-Baselines3: Reliable Reinforcement Learning Implementations. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(268): 1--8

    2021

  31. [39]

    Rutherford, A.; Ellis, B.; Gallici, M.; Cook, J.; Lupu, A.; Ingvarsson, G.; Willi, T.; Khan, A.; Schroeder de Witt, C.; Souly, A.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Samvelyan, M.; Jiang, M.; Lange, R.; Whiteson, S.; Lacerda, B.; Hawes, N.; Rockt\" a schel, T.; Lu, C.; and Foerster, J. 2024. ...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Seo, H.; and Lee, D. 2017. Reinforcement learning and strategic reasoning during social decision-making. In Decision Neuroscience, 225--231. Elsevier

    2017

  33. [41]

    S.; and Barto, A

    Sutton, R. S.; and Barto, A. G. 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press

    1998

  34. [42]

    E.; Nissen, N.; Wang, Y.; and Navidi, N

    Taylor, M. E.; Nissen, N.; Wang, Y.; and Navidi, N. 2023. Improving reinforcement learning with human assistance: an argument for human subject studies with HIPPO Gym. Neural Computing and Applications, 35(32): 23429--23439

    2023

  35. [43]

    S.; Dieffendahl, C.; Horsch, C.; Perez-Vicente, R.; et al

    Terry, J.; Black, B.; Grammel, N.; Jayakumar, M.; Hari, A.; Sullivan, R.; Santos, L. S.; Dieffendahl, C.; Horsch, C.; Perez-Vicente, R.; et al. 2021. Pettingzoo: Gym for multi-agent reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 15032--15043

    2021

  36. [44]

    U.; De Cola, G.; Deleu, T.; Goulao, M.; Kallinteris, A.; Krimmel, M.; KG, A.; et al

    Towers, M.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Terry, J.; Balis, J. U.; De Cola, G.; Deleu, T.; Goulao, M.; Kallinteris, A.; Krimmel, M.; KG, A.; et al. 2024. Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17032

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Vamplew, P.; Dazeley, R.; Berry, A.; Issabekov, R.; and Dekker, E. 2011. Empirical evaluation methods for multiobjective reinforcement learning algorithms. Machine learning, 84: 51--80

    2011

  38. [46]

    Yuan, Y.; Hao, J.; Ma, Y.; Dong, Z.; Liang, H.; Liu, J.; Feng, Z.; Zhao, K.; and Zheng, Y. 2024. Uni- RLHF : Universal Platform and Benchmark Suite for Reinforcement Learning with Diverse Human Feedback. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR

    2024

  39. [47]

    Zhang, Y.; Yang, S.; Bai, C.; Wu, F.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; and Li, X. 2024. Towards efficient llm grounding for embodied multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14314

    2024

  40. [48]

    Zhao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, C.; and Wang, S. 2021. Efficient dialogue complementary policy learning via deep q-network policy and episodic memory policy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4311--4323

    2021

  41. [49]

    Zheng, L.; Yang, J.; Cai, H.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, W.; Wang, J.; and Yu, Y. 2018. Magent: A many-agent reinforcement learning platform for artificial collective intelligence. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32

    2018

  42. [50]

    Zhu, C.; Dastani, M.; and Wang, S. 2024. A survey of multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 38(1): 4

    2024

  43. [51]

    Zhu, Z.; de Salvo Braz, R.; Bhandari, J.; Jiang, D.; Wan, Y.; Efroni, Y.; Wang, L.; Xu, R.; Guo, H.; Nikulkov, A.; et al. 2024. Pearl: A Production-Ready Reinforcement Learning Agent. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(273): 1--30

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.