When training artificial intelligence (AI) to perform tasks, humans often care not only about whether a task is completed but also how it is performed. As AI agents tackle increasingly complex tasks, aligning their behavior with human-provided specifications becomes critical for responsible AI deployment. Reward design provides a direct channel for such alignment by translating human expectations into reward functions that guide reinforcement learning (RL). However, existing methods are often too limited to capture nuanced human preferences that arise in long-horizon tasks. Hence, we introduce Hierarchical Reward Design from Language (HRDL): a problem formulation that extends classical reward design to encode richer behavioral specifications for hierarchical RL agents. We further propose Language to Hierarchical Rewards (L2HR) as a solution to HRDL. Experiments show that AI agents trained with rewards designed via L2HR not only complete tasks effectively but also better adhere to human specifications. Together, HRDL and L2HR advance the research on human-aligned AI agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. This work introduces the Hierarchical Reward Design from Language (HRDL) problem. Unlike prior work on reward design, HRDL decomposes reward design into low- and high-level components (r~L,r~H) . Language to Hierarchical Rewards (L2HR), our proposed solution to HRDL, leverages language models to guide the synthesis of these hierarchical rewards, enabling existing RL algorithms to train agents that are better aligned with human specifications.
Figure 2. Although prior works have utilized multi-level rewards to train hierarchical agents, the design of such rewards remains underexplored and lacks a concrete problem formulation. This work bridges this gap by introducing HRDL.
Figure 3. Illustration of L2HR input and output.
Figure 4. Rendered scenes from the iTHOR and Kitchen domains. Fig. 1 (right) illustrates the Rescue World domain.
Domain
Method
High-Level
Low-Level
Total
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rescue
Task
11.22 ± 5.57
20.00
-16.46 ± 5.49
0.00
73.80 ± 5.70
0.00
Flat
9.38 ± 7.02
12.50
-2.62 ± 5.19
62.50
85.13 ± 9.33
12.50
Hier
16.65 ± 6.93
76.92
-0.69 ± 1.58
76.92
93.98 ± 9.01
69.23
iTHOR
Task
4.10 ± 1.34
0.00
-23.38 ± 1.86
0.00
12.31 ± 0.66
0.00
Flat
7.67 ± 4.48
0.00
-35.20 ± 12.42
0.00
3.27 ± 9.31
0.00
Table 1. Table showing the performance of policies trained with the task reward alone or combined with LLM-generated flat or hierarchical rewards. For each metric, we report both the cumulative reward returns and the percentage of policies at expert-level alignment (attaining the maximum possible cumulative return for that metric). Means and standard deviations are computed over all runs for the Task baseline, and only over the LLM-generated reward candidates that successfully complete the task for Flat and Hier .
Figure 5. Syntax error rates for LLM-based reward generation, computed over 24 candidates per configuration.
Figure 6. Task completion rates for LLM-generated rewards, calculated as the proportion of designed rewards that preserve task feasibility among syntactically valid candidates.
Figure 7. Human-provided ratings for agent alignment.
Rescue World
Kitchen
Method
Persistence ↑
Safety ↑
Overall ↑
Chopping ↑
Flat
12.50%
50.00%
12.50%
10.00%
Hier
76.92%
61.54%
53.85%
71.43%
Table 2. Candidate agent policies (%) that received a perfect alignment score from all human participants.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8. Screenshots of renderings of the three task domains used in our study.
Domain
Method
High-Level
Low-Level
Total
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rewards ↑
Expert % ↑
Rescue
Task
11.22 ± 5.57
20.00
-16.46 ± 5.49
0.00
73.80 ± 5.70
0.00
Flat*
6.84 ± 5.24
0.00
-0.32 ± 0.72
80.00
85.88 ± 4.66
0.00
Hier*
20.00 ± 0.00
100.00
-1.00 ± 2.24
80.00
97.15 ± 2.94
80.00
iTHOR
Task
4.10 ± 1.34
0.00
-23.38 ± 1.86
0.00
12.31 ± 0.66
0.00
Flat*
7.80 ± 2.41
0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
100.00*
35.41 ± 2.98
0.00
Appendix
Table 3. Table showing the performance of policies trained with the task reward alone and with task reward combined with expert-provided flat or hierarchical rewards. For each metric (“High-Level,” “Low-Level,” and “Total”), we report both the cumulative returns and the percentage of policies achieving expert-level alignment. A policy is considered expert-aligned at the high or low level if it attains the maximum possible cumulative return for that metric. “Total” represents the sum of the task reward, high-level alignment reward, and low-level alignment reward, and a policy is deemed expert-level overall if it aligns at both levels.
Reinforcement learning has enabled the acquisition of impressive robotic skills, but typically requires hand-crafted reward functions that are slow to design and difficult to align with human intentions. Recent work, such as Eureka, automates reward design by using an LLM to iteratively generate and refine reward code from task descriptions. However, they rely on coarse feedback signals such as success rate, which provide little semantic insight into the learned behavior. As a result, their trained policies achieve the final goal but are frequently poorly aligned with task instructions. We introduce the Reward Design Agent (RDA), a VLM-based agentic framework that injects semantic understanding into reward design. RDA decomposes tasks, visually evaluates trajectories, summarizes failure modes, and iteratively revises reward code to better align with task instructions. Across 12 tabletop manipulation tasks from ManiSkill and 4 whole-body manipulation tasks from HumanoidBench, RDA produces policies substantially more instruction-aligned than those of other baselines, while achieving comparable task success rates. Videos and the generated reward code are available on https://nitinkamra1992.github.io/reward-design-agent.
Enabling human stakeholders to specify reward functions that lead to their desired outcomes is a key challenge in deploying reinforcement learning agents. Preference-based methods such as online RLHF can reduce the burden of manual reward design, but they require repeatedly training policies, sampling trajectories from the real world, and eliciting feedback, making them impractical in settings where environment interaction is computationally expensive or unsafe. We introduce Experience-Free Autonomous Reward Specification (EARS), a method for learning reward functions from preferences without environment interaction. Our approach uses a structured LLM-mediated process to construct a small set of expressive reward features from a task description and the environment observation space, then strategically samples imagined trajectories in this feature space and learns feature weights from preferences over the imagined trajectory pairs. We evaluate on three long-horizon domains: pandemic lockdown regulation design, insulin administration for diabetes patients, and autonomous vehicle control on a highway. We compare EARS to baselines that also enable reward specification without environment interaction--namely, methods that directly prompt an LLM to generate a reward function. When learning from either ground-truth preference labels or preferences labeled by a LLM, EARS designs reward functions that are more aligned with the ground truth reward function that produced the preferences or LLM context than these baselines. These results suggest that preference-based reward specification remains effective without environment sampling, enabling practical reward design in settings where collecting real trajectories is costly or infeasible.
Stephane Hatgis-Kessell, W. Bradley Knox, Emma Brunskill
1Computer Science Department, Stanford University · 2Computer Science Department, The University of Texas at Austin
Language model alignment aims to make model behavior reflect desirable properties such as helpfulness, safety, and instruction following. Existing methods draw supervision from expert demonstrations, preference judgments, or verifiable outcomes. Demonstrations typically guide supervised fine-tuning (SFT), while preference judgments and verifiers provide rewards for reinforcement learning (RL). This raises a question: can the demonstrations alone be used to derive an explicit, interpretable reward useful in a post-training pipeline? Motivated by inverse reinforcement learning, we introduce Projected Alignment Reward Estimated from Demonstrations (PARED). PARED learns an explicit reward from expert demonstrations over a small set of response-level features, using a lightweight discriminator that separates demonstrations from the policy's own samples in this feature space. Experiments with inference-time reranking and adversarial on-policy RL show improvements both when starting from a base model without an SFT stage and when further optimizing an SFT-trained model. Additionally, we demonstrate that PARED can be used for contextual alignment, in which a single policy learns to adapt its responses to the preferences of different audiences.
Michał Wiliński, Liu Leqi, Chirag Nagpal
Carnegie Mellon University · The University of Texas at Austin · Independent Researcher