Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 18, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Preference-based reward shaping can guide reinforcement learning, but adding preference signals to the reward may unintentionally change the task being optimized. We address this problem with IncentRL, a framework that introduces preference guidance while explicitly characterizing its effect on external-task performance. IncentRL adds a Kullback--Leibler (KL) penalty between a specified outcome distribution and a preferred distribution. For finite discounted Markov decision processes with bounded shaping costs, we derive an external-value perturbation bound, establish a sufficient strict-action-gap condition for preserving the original optimal policy, and characterize the large-weight regime through discounted cumulative preference cost. Exact examples clarify the limits of these guarantees, including tied optima and support mismatch. We study a practical implementation using a hand-designed, distance-based outcome proxy, a fixed preference distribution, and score-weighted coefficient search. On MiniGrid DoorKey-8x8, the reported three-seed mean success rate after two million training steps reaches 98\% with coefficient 0.01, compared with 90.5\% for the reported zero-coefficient baseline, while the search progressively shifts toward smaller coefficients. Together, these results provide a principled view of the central trade-off in preference-based RL: using additional guidance to improve learning without excessively distorting the original task objective. The current experiments remain descriptive and do not yet isolate KL shaping from simpler alternatives.