Papers › Learning Safe Agent Behaviour from Human Preferences and Justifications via World Models

Learning Safe Agent Behaviour from Human Preferences and Justifications via World Models

14 Jul 2026arXiv:2607.13172added by Syntology

Ilias Kazantzidis, Timothy J. Norman, Yali Du, Christopher T. Freeman

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

We address the problem of safely training an agent policy and deploying a good and safe policy, in settings where the environment dynamics are unknown and no suitable reward function is available. In the context of safety-critical environments, we consider traditional reinforcement learning impractical and resort to the resource of human input. We introduce DROPJ, a human-centred method for both safe training and deployment. We first learn a world model (a learned simulator) from a dataset of prior real-world trajectories. A human then plays the game in this learned simulator to extract several informative simulated trajectories. From these, we sample pairs of simulated trajectory segments and elicit from a human their preference over these segments, as well as a reason (justification) for their choice. We then train a reward model from these justified preferences and use it, together with the world model, to directly deploy the agent using model predictive control. Running real-user experiments, we find that generating informative simulated trajectories from a user significantly reduces the computational cost during training compared to other strategies, and can also improve the performance during deployment. In the context of training within a learned simulator, we show that the use of preferences rather than other types of feedback substantially improves the performance during deployment. We further demonstrate that safety justifications accompanying preferences can significantly enhance safety or prioritise user-prescribed aspects of safety associated with them during deployment.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ilkaza/DROPJ. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.13172, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections