Evaluation Metrics for Safe Reinforcement Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15315v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:04:22 GMT
• Title: Evaluation Metrics for Safe Reinforcement Learning
• Abstract summary: We argue that this convention is insufficient to reliably characterize an algorithm's true safety.<n>We introduce (i) evaluation metrics for safe RL that address each of these concerns.<n>We then define a safety tier system to systematically categorize and compare algorithms in terms of safety and reliability.
• Score: 0.3166549403591528
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Safe reinforcement learning (RL) is commonly formalized as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP), in which an agent maximizes expected reward while keeping its expected cumulative cost below a specified safety bound. Existing safe RL benchmarks predominantly report whether an algorithm is safe on average, following this expectation-based guarantee. We argue that this convention is insufficient to reliably characterize an algorithm's true safety: it fails to capture how often and how severely the safety bound is violated, whether this holds consistently across tasks and safety bounds, and whether training-time behavior is representative of behavior of the final converged policy. Therefore, we introduce (i) evaluation metrics for safe RL that address each of these concerns and in addition allow for aggregation across tasks and safety bounds. We furthermore define (ii) a safety tier system to systematically categorize and compare algorithms in terms of safety and reliability at both training and for a final policy. Using this framework, we provide (iii) an empirical safety evaluation across multiple safety navigation tasks. Our results show that aggregate metrics, distributional reporting, and task- and safety bound-specific results each reveal information the other metrics cannot. We therefore recommend reporting all three jointly, rather than compressing this information into a single value, as is common practice. We provide SafeRLEval, an open-source evaluation suite to support the reliable characterization of safety in future safe RL research.

Related papers

• DeepKnown-Guard: A Proprietary Model-Based Safety Response Framework for AI Agents [12.054307827384415]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly prominent, severely constraining their trustworthy deployment in critical domains.<n>This paper proposes a novel safety response framework designed to safeguard LLMs at both the input and output levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T03:04:35Z)
• Towards Safe Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models via Corrective Intervention [53.25106308403173]
  We show that existing methods overlook the unique significance of safe reasoning, undermining their trustworthiness and posing potential risks in applications if unsafe reasoning is accessible for and exploited by malicious users.<n>We propose Intervened Preference Optimization (IPO), an alignment method that enforces safe reasoning by substituting compliance steps with safety triggers and constructing pairs for preference learning with strong signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T07:41:09Z)
• TraCeS: Trajectory Based Credit Assignment From Sparse Safety Feedback [15.904640266226023]
  In safe reinforcement learning (RL), auxiliary safety costs are used to align the agent to safe decision making.<n>In practice, safety constraints, including cost functions and budgets, are unknown or hard to specify.<n>We address a general setting where the true safety definition is unknown, and has to be learned from sparsely labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T01:11:08Z)
• Safe Vision-Language Models via Unsafe Weights Manipulation [75.04426753720551]
  We revise safety evaluation by introducing Safe-Ground, a new set of metrics that evaluate safety at different levels of granularity.<n>We take a different direction and explore whether it is possible to make a model safer without training, introducing Unsafe Weights Manipulation (UWM)<n>UWM uses a calibration set of safe and unsafe instances to compare activations between safe and unsafe content, identifying the most important parameters for processing the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T17:00:22Z)
• Probabilistic Shielding for Safe Reinforcement Learning [51.35559820893218]
  In real-life scenarios, a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent must often also behave in a safe manner, including at training time.<n>We present a new, scalable method, which enjoys strict formal guarantees for Safe RL.<n>We show that our approach provides a strict formal safety guarantee that the agent stays safe at training and test time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T17:54:33Z)
• Feasibility Consistent Representation Learning for Safe Reinforcement Learning [25.258227763316228]
  We introduce a novel framework named Feasibility Consistent Safe Reinforcement Learning (FCSRL) This framework combines representation learning with feasibility-oriented objectives to identify and extract safety-related information from the raw state for safe RL. Our method is capable of learning a better safety-aware embedding and achieving superior performance than previous representation learning baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T01:37:21Z)
• Safe Exploration in Reinforcement Learning: A Generalized Formulation and Algorithms [8.789204441461678]
  We present a solution of the safe exploration (GSE) problem in the form of a meta-algorithm for safe exploration, MASE. Our proposed algorithm achieves better performance than state-of-the-art algorithms on grid-world and Safety Gym benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T00:47:09Z)
• Safety Margins for Reinforcement Learning [53.10194953873209]
  We show how to leverage proxy criticality metrics to generate safety margins. We evaluate our approach on learned policies from APE-X and A3C within an Atari environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T16:49:54Z)
• Recursively Feasible Probabilistic Safe Online Learning with Control Barrier Functions [60.26921219698514]
  We introduce a model-uncertainty-aware reformulation of CBF-based safety-critical controllers. We then present the pointwise feasibility conditions of the resulting safety controller. We use these conditions to devise an event-triggered online data collection strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T05:02:09Z)
• Safe Reinforcement Learning via Confidence-Based Filters [78.39359694273575]
  We develop a control-theoretic approach for certifying state safety constraints for nominal policies learned via standard reinforcement learning techniques. We provide formal safety guarantees, and empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T11:43:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.