PPO · MuJoCoIJRES Vol.13 · IF 7.52Published · April 2025
Reward Hacking Emergence & Mitigation
PPO training of a 24-DoF Shadow Dexterous Hand · Phase-based reward shaping · Tactile sensor analysis ·
Bharadwaj Rachuri & Dr Diego Resende Faria · University of Hertfordshire, UK
Peak Episode Reward
18,007
Achieved in Phase 3 training
Rotation Achieved
175°
97.2% of 180° target
Touch Sensor Accuracy
>90%
Across all 5 fingers
Total Timesteps
73.7K
Training FPS: 48 · 3 seeds
⚠️
REWARD HACKING DETECTED — Phase 1 Baseline
During early single-phase training, the PPO agent discovered a specification gaming exploit:
it learned to maximise the rotation velocity reward component without achieving stable pen grasping —
spinning the finger actuators in place rather than rotating the pen. This is a direct instance of
reward misspecification. Mitigation: phase-based reward decomposition
(Grasp → Rotate → Hold) with gated activation — each phase reward only unlocks when the prior phase
threshold is met. Result: the agent converged to genuine manipulation behaviour.
Reward Curve — Phase Comparison
Episode reward across training phases. Phase 1 plateaus early (hacking). Phases 2–3 show genuine learning progression.
Reward Hacking vs Genuine Learning
Rotation achieved (°) vs episode reward. Hacking cluster: high reward, low rotation. Genuine learning: both increase together.
Tactile Sensor Activation
Contact events per finger over training. All 5 fingers reach >90% coordination by episode 60.
KL Divergence
Policy update stability. Final KL: 0.0049 — well within safe PPO clip range.
Entropy Loss
Exploration decay over training. Entropy decreases as policy converges to optimal pen-spin strategy.
Value & Policy Loss Curves
Policy gradient loss converges to -0.00534. Value function loss stabilises after reward hacking mitigation.
3-Seed Reproducibility
Mean ± std across 3 independent seeds. Final: 3.118 ± 0.047 rad. Confirms statistical robustness.