Safe on Average, Unsafe in the Tail: When Is the Episodic-Cost Tail Controllable?

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.

Safe navigation for mobile robots demands policies that remain reliable under the high-consequence perception uncertainty of cluttered environments. Yet most existing safe reinforcement learning (RL) methods assess safety through average cumulative cost. Such metrics can mask dangerous tail-risk behaviors. To address this, we propose a framework that trains risk-sensitive policies through Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) constrained optimization on an off-policy TD3 backbone and evaluates their safety margins post-training through neural network reachability verification. During training, the policy is optimized under CVaR constraints on cumulative costs, promoting sensitivity to high-cost tail outcomes rather than average behavior alone. After training, we compute action reachable sets under bounded observation uncertainty using Taylor Model analysis, yielding a safety rate metric that quantifies the proportion of evaluated states at which the policy's reachable action set remains within prescribed safety margins. A key finding is that policies trained with CVaR constraints maintain larger safety margins from obstacles across evaluated states. This makes them significantly more amenable to formal reachability verification. Experiments across ten navigation scenarios and six baselines show that our method achieves a 98.3% success rate, the highest safety verification rate among all compared methods, while revealing that average cost rankings and reachability-based safety rankings can diverge. This indicates that reachability verification captures risks which are missed by empirical cost metrics alone. We further validate our approach on a physical Clearpath Jackal robot, demonstrating successful sim-to-real transfer.

Safe reinforcement learning typically enforces safety by bounding expected cumulative costs, a criterion that often fails to detect rare but catastrophic tail events. To overcome these limitations, this paper introduces SteinGate, a boundary-aware distributional safety certificate that replaces fragile tail fitting with a robust consistency check using Kernelized Stein Discrepancy while accounting for boundary atoms induced by clipped costs. SteinGate evaluates whether observed policy rollout costs remain consistent with a safe reference distribution, providing a non-parametric safety certificate. This certificate is used to dynamically adapt the learning regime: favoring reward-improving policy updates when rollouts remain consistent with the safe reference and switching to recovery behavior when the cost tail deviates. Experiments on continuous-control benchmarks demonstrate that SteinGate significantly reduces both the frequency and severity of constraint violations during training while maintaining competitive returns relative to state-of-the-art baselines.