Action Shaping: Policies Absorb What They Can Express

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.

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.

Modern network policy control maps intent to sequential placement-control decisions. Bellman-style policy optimization primarily asks which action to optimize, while constraints are commonly handled through penalty, barrier, or Lagrangian mechanisms. We observe that before a value function can certify the best deployment, intermediate signals may already identify many candidates that should be excluded from further optimization. This motivates a complementary direction: \emph{Learning Not to Optimize}. Before a value function is accurate enough to select the best placement-control decision, intermediate signals may already show that candidates are equivalent under state--intent relabeling (quotienting), lead to a uniformly worse future state (dominance), or violate executable network laws (residual screening). \LNOQRD{} uses these computed or learned signals as a shadow process to reshape the domain on which primal policy optimization is performed, thereby reducing the action space. We prove lossless quotienting and dominance under explicit equivariance and monotonicity conditions, bound frontier size and ranking cost, and quantify losses from approximate certificates and primal estimates. Experiments show that \LNOQRD{} reduces small-instance candidates by $75.9\%$ while retaining $90.8\%$ near-oracle coverage and, on large instances, achieves the highest utility and intent satisfaction, the lowest hard-law violation and post-generation latency, and a $73.0\%$ average reduction among candidate-based baselines.