Reward Structure Shapes the Interaction Between Episodic Exploration and Neural Memory in Reinforcement Learning

2026-08-05Machine Learning

Machine Learning
AI summary

The authors study how agents learn in situations where they can’t fully see what’s going on and must both explore to find rewards and remember what they discover. They test different ways of encouraging exploration (bonuses) with various types of memory systems in tasks where memory needs differ. Their results show that exploration bonuses help only when agents must actively discover and remember useful info, but not when the reward information is straightforward or preset. They also create a new way to describe how rewards are spaced out and how that affects learning. Overall, the authors show that encouraging exploration and having good memory work together to improve learning, not replace each other.

partially observable reinforcement learningexploration bonusmemory architecturesparse rewardsepisodic explorationreward supervisionreward structurepolicy convergencereward machineslatent memory
Authors
Jai Malegaonkar, Rohan Patil, Henrik I. Christensen
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.