ReviewCommunications psychology2026
Natural and engineered safe reinforcement learning.
Review in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Survival depends not only on maximising rewards but on minimising harm. While Reinforcement Learning (RL) provides a normative framework for adaptive decision-making, standard algorithms often fail to account for the catastrophic costs of errors during learning, in the same way as animals do. In this review, we synthesise recent advances connecting the engineering of safe RL with behavioural and systems neuroscience. We adopt a principled taxonomy distinguishing between two strategies: (1) modifying the optimisation criterion to embed safety into the learning objective, and (2) modifying the exploration process to prevent dangerous actions. We show that engineering solutions, such as worst-case optimisation, risk-sensitive objectives (e.g., conditional value at risk, CVaR), and constrained Markov decision processes (MDPs), offer precise computational accounts for anxiety, risk-aversion, and defensive reflexes. Conversely, biological mechanisms, including innate priors, interoception, and meta-control based on uncertainty, reliability and competing needs, offer robust solutions to the problem of safe exploration in artificial agents. By bridging these domains, we highlight a converging computational landscape where safety is achieved through a dynamic interplay between reactive instincts and deliberative planning.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.