Organizations: School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China · Jiangsu XCMG Construction Machinery Research Institute Co., Ltd., Jiangsu 221000, China
Deep reinforcement learning for continuous control often suffers from high variance, low energy efficiency, and poor generalization under distribution shift, as purely data-driven exploration ignores available physical structure. This paper proposes Hybrid Energy-Aware Reward Shaping (H-EARS), which encodes dominant energy terms -- assumed known a priori -- directly as reward potentials at O(n) per-step computation. H-EARS decomposes the shaping potential into task-oriented and energy-based components, supplemented by an action regularization term that deliberately modifies the optimization objective to enforce energy-efficient control. A complete theoretical foundation is established: functional independence of shaping and regularization, energy-based gradient enrichment under positive-definite Hessian conditions, convergence guarantees under function approximation, and approximate potential error bounds. Across four continuous control benchmarks and four baseline algorithms, H-EARS achieves consistent gains in convergence speed, policy stability, and final performance. High-fidelity vehicle simulations validate applicability in safety-critical settings under extreme road conditions.
Figures & tables
Method Type
Complexity
Known Structure?
Generalization
Application Scenario
Lagrangian RL [ 3 ]
O(n3)
No (learns from data)
Low
Unknown-dynamics systems
Hamiltonian RL [ 4 ]
O(n2)
No (learns from data)
Low
Unknown conservative systems
Graph Networks [ 17 ]
O(n2)
No (learns from data)
Medium
Multi-body simulation
Neural ODE [ 18 ]
O(n2)
No (learns from data)
Medium
Temporal dynamics modeling
Pure Model-free RL
O(1)
No
High
Large data available
H-EARS (Ours)
O(n)
Partial (dominant terms)
High
Rapid prototyping + deployment
TABLE I: Characteristic Comparison of Different Physics-Guided Methods ‡
Symbol
Definition
M=(S,A,P,R,γ)
Original MDP
Mλ
Regularized MDP: reward Rλ=R−λE(a)
J(π) , JM(π)
Cumulative return; JM emphasizes the original reward R
Fig. 1: H-EARS construction pipeline. Left branch (action domain): action regularization defines the regularized MDP, intentionally modifying the optimization objective to trade task performance for energy efficiency (Proposition II.2 ). Right branch (state domain): physical energy knowledge and task specification are combined into the dual potential Φ ; gradient enrichment under locally positive-definite ∂2E/∂q2 is established in Theorem II.3 . Potential-based reward shaping (PBRS) is applied to regularized MDP using Φ , yielding RH-EARS . Since the two branches act on disjoint argument domains, αtask , αenergy , and λ serve as independently tunable design parameters (Lemma II.1 ).
Fig. 2: Benchmark performance comparison across four environments and four baseline algorithms. SAC and TD3 results validate Theorem II.3 (energy-based gradient enrichment under positive-definite Hessian accelerates convergence) and Lemma II.1 (independent task and energy contributions). DDPG degradation in Ant-v5 instantiates the oscillatory-artifact failure mode analyzed in Proposition II.2 : DDPG’s OU exploration is suppressed by energy regularization, creating local-minima traps in the 8-DOF shaped landscape.
Algorithm
Ant-v5
Hopper-v5
LunarLander-v3
Humanoid-v5
SAC - Vanilla
3157±182
2520±405
268±30
4988±502
SAC - H-EARS
4183±174
3354±354
289±19
5228±470
TD3 - Vanilla
3570±391
2364±302
279±15
4964±357
TD3 - H-EARS
4125±398
2641±298
277±9
5190±325
PPO - Vanilla
376±281
1621±255
235±24
197±89
PPO - H-EARS
501±127
1568±203
258±14
178±120
TABLE III: Comprehensive Performance Comparison across Standard Environments
Ant-v5
Hopper-v5
Variant
αtask
αenergy
λ
αtask
αenergy
λ
SAC - Vanilla
0
0
0
0
0
0
Energy Only
0
3e-2
0
0
1e-3
0
Task Only
5e-3
0
0
5e-1
0
0
Regularization Only
0
0
1e-2
0
0
5e-4
Without Regularization
5e-3
3e-2
0
5e-1
1e-3
0
TABLE IV: Hyperparameters for Ablation Variants in Ant-v5 and Hopper-v5
Fig. 3: Ablation study in Ant-v5 and Hopper-v5 (SAC backbone). TaskOnly and EnergyOnly converge independently without gradient interference, supporting Lemma II.1 . The Without-Regularization gap validates Proposition II.2 .
Fig. 4: Dual-decomposition ablation: H-EARS vs. Combined-Single- Φ (same total weight αtask+αenergy , single potential), Task Φ Only, and Energy Φ Only. SAC backbone, 5 seeds; shading = ± s.e. Combined-Single- Φ underperforms H-EARS by ≈ 33% (Ant) and ≈ 21% (Hopper) despite identical total weighting, validating Proposition II.4 . In Hopper-v5 it falls below Energy Φ Only, confirming that potential merging suppresses rather than combines individual contributions.
TABLE VI: Statistical Significance (Welch’s t -test)
Fig. 5: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis (SAC backbone). Each row tests one parameter ( αtask , αenergy , λ from top to bottom); each column corresponds to one environment; each colored line corresponds to one tested value (1e0–1e-5 as shown in the legend). Shaded bands show ± 1 s.d. over 5 seeds. Optimal values for each environment are listed in Table X . The smooth, bounded response in panels a–k and the complete failure of λ= 1e-5 in panel l are both consistent with Theorem II.6 and Proposition II.2 respectively.
Fig. 6: Vehicle simulation model in Trucksim
Parameter
Symbol/Unit
Value
Total Vehicle Mass
m /kg
2100
Yaw Moment of Inertia
Iz /kg·m 2
4116
Center of Mass Height
h /mm
710
Distance from CoG to Front Axle
a /mm
1350
Distance from CoG to Rear Axle
b /mm
1450
Front Track Width
df /mm
1800
TABLE VII: Vehicle Body Parameter Settings
Fig. 7: Training road height and adhesion coefficient variation parameter settings
Fig. 8: Test road height and adhesion coefficient variation parameter settings
Fig. 9: Training return across four variants
Algorithm
Episodes to Threshold
Avg. Return (Stable)
CV (%)
H-EARS SAC ( εapprox=10% )
179
357.0 ± 14.0
3.8
H-EARS SAC ( εapprox=15% )
281
311.0 ± 12.0
4.0
H-EARS SAC ( εapprox=30% )
348
280.0 ± 22.0
5.8
SAC
376
275.0 ± 18.0
8.3
TABLE VIII: Training Performance Comparison Across Approximation Levels
Metric
H-EARS ( ε=10% )
H-EARS ( ε=15% )
H-EARS ( ε=30% )
SAC
Avg Speed Error (m/s)
2.51±0.32
0.23±0.12
0.35±0.20
2.9±0.19
Max Sideslip (°)
0.30
0.52
0.82
1.03
Max ∣r∣ (°/s)
0.51
1.18
2.71
3.24
CV of Speed (%)
2.8
5.2
7.1
7.8
TABLE IX: Vehicle Control Performance Under Extreme Conditions: Cross-Approximation Comparison
Fig. 10: Longitudinal speed tracking error variation with position for each controller
Fig. 11: Sideslip angle and yaw rate variation with position for each controller
Reinforcement learning control uses reward-driven learning to make decisions in dynamic systems, from robots and vehicles to energy and infrastructure.
Reward shaping is fundamental to modern robotic control with deep reinforcement learning (RL), yet practitioners still rely heavily on heuristic principles borrowed from classical optimal control and trajectory optimization. Existing methods rarely distinguish reward terms that are intrinsic to the control objective from numerical regularizers, leading to brittle hyperparameter tuning. To determine which quantities a reward must contain, we study the stabilization control problem with a focus on zeroth-order (configuration) and first-order (velocity) information. We theoretically and empirically demonstrate that policy gradient methods can successfully solve stabilization tasks without first-order reward terms, adding such terms can instead introduce severe sensitivity as their scale grows. Conversely, our findings confirm that reward functions must be zeroth-order complete over goal-relevant coordinates, while the first-order state remains necessary in the policy observation under our low-dissipation assumptions. Overall, these results provide actionable and principled guidance for reward design in robotic RL.
Yisheng Zhang, Tao Wang, Sicun Gao
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
We study reinforcement learning in hybrid discrete-continuous action spaces, such as settings where the discrete component selects a regime (or index) and the continuous component optimizes within it -- a structure common in robotics, control, and operations problems. Standard model-free policy gradient methods rely on score-function (SF) estimators and suffer from severe credit-assignment issues in high-dimensional settings, leading to poor gradient quality. On the other hand, differentiable simulation largely sidesteps these issues by backpropagating through a simulator, but the presence of discrete actions or non-smooth dynamics yields biased or uninformative gradients. To address this, we propose Hybrid Policy Optimization (HPO), which backpropagates through the simulator wherever smoothness permits, using a mixed gradient estimator that combines pathwise and SF gradients while maintaining unbiasedness. We also show how problems with action discontinuities can be reformulated in hybrid form, further broadening its applicability. Empirically, HPO substantially outperforms PPO on inventory control and switched linear-quadratic regulator problems, with performance gaps increasing as the continuous action dimension grows. Finally, we characterize the structure of the mixed gradient, showing that its cross term -- which captures how continuous actions influence future discrete decisions -- becomes negligible near a discrete best response, thereby enabling approximate decentralized updates of the continuous and discrete components and reducing variance near optimality. All resources are available at github.com/MatiasAlvo/hybrid-rl.
Sparse, delayed, and weakly informative rewards remain central obstacles to efficient reinforcement learning. Reward shaping addresses these limitations by supplementing the task reward with an auxiliary signal that can accelerate learning while, in the classical setting, the original objective remains the evaluation criterion. Established theory guarantees safety for fixed shaping signals: potential-based reward shaping preserves optimal policies when the auxiliary term is the discounted difference of a time-invariant potential. In contemporary reinforcement learning systems, however, both the learner and the information available for guidance evolve during training: value estimates improve, novelty diminishes, feedback shifts, and predictive models are refined. Adaptive reward mechanisms occur across exploration, Bayesian inference, human-in-the-loop learning, automated reward design, and foundation-model-based approaches. This study introduces a unified analytical framework for comparing dynamic reward shaping and neighbouring adaptive reward mechanisms. The proposed framework distinguishes parametric revision from state-dependent variation, separates additive shaping from reward replacement and reward-adjacent guidance, and organises existing methods along temporal, informational, and theoretical dimensions. Using this framework, twelve method families are comparatively analysed. The framework further highlights the conditions under which optimality guarantees survive contemporary deep reinforcement learning pipelines, replay buffers, bootstrapped critics, and reward normalisation, while exposing the unresolved relationship between adaptation rate and learner stability.
Fouad Bahrpeyma
Industrial AI Group Professorship for Information Management Faculty of Informatics / Mathematics Dresden University of Applied Sciences Dresden, Germany