”Machine Learning” manuscript No.
(will be inserted by the editor)

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and
Robots: A Survey.
Thomas M. Moerland · Joost Broekens ·
Catholijn M. Jonker

arXiv:1705.05172v1 [cs.LG] 15 May 2017

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract This article provides the first survey of computational models of emotion in reinforcement learning (RL) agents. The survey focuses on agent/robot
emotions, and mostly ignores human user emotions. Emotions are recognized
as functional in decision-making by influencing motivation and action selection.
Therefore, computational emotion models are usually grounded in the agent’s decision making architecture, of which RL is an important subclass. Studying emotions
in RL-based agents is useful for three research fields. For machine learning (ML)
researchers, emotion models may improve learning efficiency. For the interactive
ML and human-robot interaction (HRI) community, emotions can communicate
state and enhance user investment. Lastly, it allows affective modelling (AM) researchers to investigate their emotion theories in a successful AI agent class. This
survey provides background on emotion theory and RL. It systematically addresses
1) from what underlying dimensions (e.g., homeostasis, appraisal) emotions can be
derived and how these can be modelled in RL-agents, 2) what types of emotions
have been derived from these dimensions, and 3) how these emotions may either
influence the learning efficiency of the agent or be useful as social signals. We also
systematically compare evaluation criteria, and draw connections to important RL
sub-domains like (intrinsic) motivation and model-based RL. In short, this survey
provides both a practical overview for engineers wanting to implement emotions
in their RL agents, and identifies challenges and directions for future emotion-RL
research.
Keywords Reinforcement learning · Emotion · Motivation · Agent · Robot
1 Introduction
This survey systematically covers the literature on computational models of emotion in reinforcement learning (RL) agents. Computational models of emotions are
T.M. Moerland, J. Broekens, C.M. Jonker
Delft University of Technology
Mekelweg 4, 2628CD, Delft, The Netherlands
E-mail: {T.M.Moerland, D.J.Broekens, C.M.Jonker}@tudelft.nl

2

Moerland et al.

usually grounded in the agent decision-making architecture. In this work we focus
on emotion models in a successful learning architecture: reinforcement learning,
i.e. agents optimizing some reward function in a Markov Decision Process (MDP)
formulation. To directly avoid confusion: the topic does not imply the agent should
‘learn its emotions’, i.e. emotions are rather hooked on characteristics of the MDP
(like value and transition functions), and may for example well persist after learning has converged.
One may question why it is useful to study emotions in machines at all. The
computational study of emotions is an example of bio-inspiration in computational
science. Many important advancements in machine learning and optimization were
based on biological principles, such as neural networks, evolutionary algorithms
and swarm-based optimization (Russell et al, 1995). An example encountered in
this survey is homeostasis, a concept closely related to emotions, and a biological
principle that led researchers to implement goal switching in RL agents.
The study of emotions in learning agents is useful for three research fields.
First, for the machine learning (ML) community, emotions may benefit learning
efficiency. For example, there are important connections to the work on (intrinsically) motivated RL. Second, researchers working on interactive machine learning
and human-robot interaction (HRI) may benefit from emotions to enhance both
transparency (i.e. communicate agent internal state) and user empathy. Finally,
from an affective modelling (AM) perspective, where emotions are mostly studied
in cognitive agents, RL agents provide the general benefits of the MDP formulation: these agents require few assumptions, can be applied to a variety of tasks
without much prior knowledge, and, allow for learning. This also gives AM researchers access to complex, high-dimensional test domains to evaluate emotion
theories.
Emotion is an important part of human intelligence (Johnson-Laird and Oatley, 1992; Damasio, 1994; Baumeister et al, 2007). On the one hand, emotion
has been defined as a response to a significant stimulus - characterized by brain
and body arousal and a subjective feeling - that elicits a tendency towards motivated action (Calvo et al, 2014; Frijda et al, 1989). This emphasizes the relation
of emotions with motivation and action. On the other hand, emotions have also
been identified as complex feedback signals used to shape behaviour (Baumeister
et al, 2007; Broekens et al, 2013). This view emphasizes the feedback function of
emotion. The common ground in both: 1) emotions are related to action selection
mechanisms and 2) emotion processing is in principle beneficial to the viability
of the individual. As an illustration, Damasio (1994) showed that people with
impaired emotional processing (due to brain damage) show failures in work and
social life. These observations connecting emotions to action selection and adaptive decision-making sparked interest in the computer science community as well,
mainly following the initial work by Cañamero (1997b) and Gadanho and Hallam
(1998).
We wrote this survey for two reasons. First, while the topic of emotion in RL
agents has received attention for nearly 20 years, it appears to fall in between
the machine learning and affective modelling communities. In particular, there is
no framework connecting the variety of models and implementations. Although
Rumbell et al (2012) compared emotion models in twelve different agents, their
work does not provide a full survey of the topic, nor does it focus on agents
with a learning architecture. Our main aim is to establish such a framework,

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

3

hoping to bridge the communities and potentially align research agendas. As a
second motivation, this survey is also useful to engineers working on social agents
and robots. Emotion has an important functional role in social interaction and
social robotics (Fong et al, 2003). Our survey is also a practical guideline for
engineers who wish to implement emotional functionality in their RL-based agents
and robots.
As a final note, the term ‘reinforcement learning’ may be misleading to readers
from a cognitive AI or psychological background. RL may reminisce of ‘instrumental conditioning’, with stimulus-response experiments on short time-scales.
Although indeed related, RL here refers to the computational term for a successful
class of algorithms solving Markov Decision Processes by sampling and learning
from data. MDPs (introduced in Section 2.4) provide a generic specification for
short-term and long-term sequential decision-making problems with minimal assumptions. Note that many cognitive AI approaches, that usually employ a notion
of ‘goal’, are also expressible in MDP formulation by defining a sparse reward
function with positive reward at the goal state.
The structure of this review is as follows. First, Section 2 provides the necessary
background on emotion and reinforcement learning from psychology, neuroscience
and computer science. Section 3 discusses the survey’s methodology and proposed
taxonomy. Subsequently, Sections 4-6 contain the main results of this survey by
systematically categorizing approaches to emotion elicitation, emotion types and
emotion functionality. Additionally, the comparison of evaluation criteria is presented in (Section 7). The survey ends with a general discussion of our findings,
highlights some important problems and indicates future directions in this field
(Section 8).

2 Background
As many papers included in this survey build upon psychological (2.1) and neuroscientific (2.2) theories of emotion, this section provides a high-level overview
of these fields. Subsequently, we position our work in the computer science and
machine learning community (2.3). We conclude these preliminaries by formally
introducing computational reinforcement learning (2.4).

2.1 Psychology
We discuss three dominant psychological emotion theories: categorical, dimensional, and componential theories (see also Lisetti and Hudlicka (2014)).
Categorical emotion theory assumes there is a set of discrete emotions forming
the ‘basic’ emotions. These ideas are frequently inspired by the work by Ekman
et al (1987), who identified the cross-cultural recognition of anger, fear, joy, sadness, surprise and disgust on facial expressions. In an evolutionary perspective,
each basic emotion can be considered as an elementary response pattern, or action tendency (Frijda et al, 1989). For example, fear has the associated action
tendency of avoidance, which helps the organism to survive a dangerous situation,
accompanied by a negative feeling and prototypical facial expression. However, the
concept of ‘basic’ emotions remains controversial within psychology, as is reflected

4

Moerland et al.

in the ongoing debate about which emotions should be included. The number of
emotions to be included ranges from 2 to 18, see Calvo et al (2014).
Dimensional emotion theory (Russell, 1978) assumes an underlying affective
space. This space involves at least two dimensions; usually valence (i.e. positive/negative evaluation) and arousal (i.e. activation level) (Russell and Barrett,
1999). For example, fear is a highly arousing and negative affective state. The
theory was originally developed as a ‘Core affect’ model, i.e. describing a more
long-term, underlying emotional state. Osgood et al (1964) orginally added dominance as a third dimension, resulting in the PAD (pleasure, arousal, dominance)
model. Dimensional models have difficulty separating emotion categories such as
anger and disgust, which is a common critique on the theory.
Finally, componential emotion theory, best known as cognitive appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991), considers emotions as the results of evaluations (appraisals) of
incoming stimuli according to personal relevance. Some examples of frequently occurring appraisal dimensions are valence, novelty, goal relevance, goal congruence
and coping potential. Distinct emotions relate to specific patterns of appraisal
activation. For example, anger is a result of evaluating a situation as harmful
to one’s own goals with the emotion attributed to the responsible actor and at
least some feeling of power. Some well-known appraisal theories that have been
a basis for computational models are the OCC model (named after the authors
Ortony, Clore and Collins) (Ortony et al, 1990), the component process theory
of emotions (CPT) (Scherer et al, 2001), and the belief-desire theory of emotions
(BDTE) (Reisenzein, 2009). Although cognitive appraisal theories describe the
structure of emotion well, they are limited with respect to explaining where appraisals themselves come from, what the function of emotion is in cognition and
intelligence, and how they are related to evolution.
Note that the presented theories focus on different aspects of emotions. For
example, appraisal theory focuses on how emotions are elicited, while categorical
emotion models focus on action tendencies, i.e. the immediate function of emotions. Some consider emotions to precede action selection, while others focus on
emotions as feedback signals (Baumeister et al, 2007). In this survey emotions are
considered in a reward-based feedback loop, which involves both emotion elicitation and function.

2.2 Neuroscience
Affective responses and their relation to behaviour and learning have also been extensively studied in neuroscience; for a survey see (Rolls and Grabenhorst, 2008).
We discuss theories by LeDoux, Damasio and Rolls. The work by LeDoux (2003)
mainly focussed on the role of the amygdala in fear conditioning. LeDoux identified that incoming sensory stimuli can directly move from thalamus to amygdala, thereby bypassing the previously assumed intermediate step through the
neo-cortex. As such, the work showed that emotional responses may also be elicited
without neo-cortical reasoning.
Damasio (1994) took a different perspective on rational emotions through the
‘somatic marker hypothesis’. He proposes that emotions are the result of bodily
sensations, which tell the organism that current sensations (i.e. events) are beneficial (e.g. pleasure) or harmful (e.g. pain). The somatic marker is therefore a signal

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

5

that can be interpreted as feedback about the desirability of current and imagined
situations. The somatic marker hypothesis has been interpreted in terms of RL as
well (Dunn et al, 2006).
Later work by Rolls shifted the attention from the amygdala to the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) (Rolls and Grabenhorst, 2008) Imaging studies have implicated the OFC in both reinforcement and affect, with direct input connections
of most sensory channels (taste, olfactory, visual, touch), while projecting to several brain areas involving motor behaviour (striatum) and autonomic responses
(hypothalamus) (Rolls and Grabenhorst, 2008). Also, single neuron studies have
shown that visual and taste signals (the latter being a well-known primary reinforcer) converge on the same neurons (Rolls and Baylis, 1994), coined ’conditional
reward neurons’. Earlier work already identified ’error neurons’, which mainly respond when an expected reward is not received (Thorpe et al, 1983).
Together, these theories suggest that emotions are closely linked to reward processing. These ideas are implicitly reflected in part of the reinforcement learningbased implementations in this survey. These ideas are also reflected in Rolls’ evolutionary theory of emotion (Rolls and Grabenhorst, 2008), which identifies emotions
as the results of primary reinforcers (like taste, affiliative touch, pain) which specify generic goals for survival and reproductive success (like food, company and
body integrity). According to Rolls, emotions exclusively emerge from these goalrelated events. This view is also compatible with the cognitive appraisal view that
emotions are the result of stimuli being evaluated according to their goal/need relevance. However, in cognitive appraisal theory the ’goal’ is defined at a different
level of abstraction.

2.3 Computer Science
Affective modelling is a vibrant field in computer science with active subfields
(Calvo et al, 2014), including work on affect detection and social signal processing
(Vinciarelli et al, 2012; Calvo and D’Mello, 2010), computational modelling of
affect in robots and virtual agents (Marsella et al, 2010), and expression of emotion
in robots and virtual agents (Ochs et al, 2015; Paiva et al, 2015; Lhommet and
Marsella, 2015). Since this survey focusses on affective modelling, in particular
in RL-based agents, we provide some context by discussing emotions in different
agent architectures, in particular symbolic and (non-RL) machine learning-based.
One of the earliest symbolic/cognitive architectures was Velasquez’ Cathexis
model (Velasquez, 1998). It incorporated Ekman’s six emotions in the pet robot
Yuppy, which later also formed the basis for the well-known social robot Kismet
(Breazeal, 2003). Several well-known symbolic architectures have also incorporated
emotions, either based on categorical emotions (Murphy et al, 2002), somatic
marker hypothesis (Laird, 2008), or appraisal theories (EMIB (Michaud, 2002),
EMA (Marsella and Gratch, 2009) and LIDA (Franklin et al, 2014)). Although
symbolic/cognitive architecture approaches are capable of solving a variety of AI
tasks, they are limited with respect to learning from exploration and feedback in
unstructured tasks.
In contrast, machine learning implementations focus on learning, as the agent
should gradually adapt to its environment and task. The dominant research direction in this field is reinforcement learning (RL) (Sutton and Barto, 1998), which we

6

Moerland et al.

formally introduce in the next section. There are however other machine learning
implementations that incorporate emotions. Some examples include agents based
on evolutionary neural networks (Parisi and Petrosino, 2010), the free-energy principle (Joffily and Coricelli, 2013), Bayesian models (Antos and Pfeffer, 2011) or
entropy (Belavkin, 2004).
Finally, we want to stress that the focus of this review is on agent emotion,
i.e. how it is elicited and may influence the agent’s learning loop. A related but
clearly distinct topic is how human emotion may act as a teaching signal for this
loop. Broekens (2007) showed human emotional feedback speeds up agent learning
in a grid-world task compared to a baseline agent. There are a few other examples
in this direction (Hasson et al, 2011; Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013),
but in general the literature of emotion as a teaching signal is limited. Although
the way in which humans actually tend to provide feedback is an active research
topic (Thomaz and Breazeal, 2008; Knox et al, 2012, 2013), it remains a question
whether emotions would be a viable channel for human feedback. We do not further
pursue this discussion here, and put our focus on agent emotions in RL agents.

2.4 Computational Reinforcement Learning
Computational reinforcement learning (RL) (Sutton and Barto, 1998; Wiering
and Van Otterlo, 2012) is a successful approach that enables autonomous agents
to learn from interaction with their environment. We adopt a Markov Decision
Process (MDP) specified by the tuple: {S, A, T, r, γ}, where S denotes a set of
states, A a set of actions, T : S × A → P (S) denotes the transition function,
r : S × A × S → R denotes the reward function and γ ∈ (0, 1] denotes a discount
parameter. The goal of the agent is to find a policy π : S → P (A) that maximizes
the expected (infinite-horizon) discounted return:

Qπ (s, a) = Eπ,T

∞
nX

o
γ t r(st , at , st+1 )|s0 = s, a0 = a

t=0

=

X

h
i
X
T (s0 |s, a) r(s, a, s0 ) + γ
π(s0 , a0 )Qπ (s0 , a0 )

s0 ∈S

(1)

a0 ∈A

where we explicitly write out the expectation over the (possibly) stochastic policy
and transition function. The optimal value function is defined as
Q? (s, a) = max Qπ (s, a)
π

(2)

from which we can derive the optimal policy
π ? (s) = argmax Q? (s, a)

(3)

a∈A

There are several approaches to learning the optimal policy. When the environmental dynamics T (s0 |s, a) and reward function r(s, a, s0 ) are known, we can
use planning algorithms like Dynamic Programming (DP). However, in many applications the environment’s dynamics are hard to determine. As an alternative,

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

7

we can use sampling-based methods to learn the policy, known as reinforcement
learning.
There is a large variety of RL approaches. First, we can separate value-function
methods, which try to iteratively approximate the cumulative return specified in
equation (1), and policy search, which tries to directly optimize some parametrized
policy. Policy search shows promising results in real robotic applications (Kober
and Peters, 2012). However, most work in RL utilizes value-function methods, on
which we also focus in this survey.
Among value-function methods we should identify model-free versus modelbased approaches. In model-free RL we iteratively approximate the value-function
through temporal difference (TD) learning, thereby avoiding having to learn the
transition function (which is usually challenging). Well-known algorithms are Qlearning (Watkins, 1989), SARSA (Rummery and Niranjan, 1994) and TD(λ)
(Sutton, 1988). The update equation for Q-learning is given by:

i
h
Q(s0 , a0 ) − Q(s, a)
Q(s, a) = Q(s, a) + α r(s, a, s0 ) + γ max
0
a

(4)

where α specifies a learning rate. With additional criteria for the learning and
exploration parameters we can show this estimation procedure converges to the
optimal value function (Sutton and Barto, 1998).
Model-based RL (Hester and Stone, 2012b) is a hybrid form of planning (like
DP) and sampling (like TD learning). In model-based RL, we approximate the
transition and reward function from the sampled experience. After acquiring knowledge of the environment, we can mix real sample experience with planning updates.
We will write M = {T̂ , r̂} to denote the estimated model. Note that a model is derived from the full agent-environment interaction history at time-point t, as given
by gt = {s0 , a0 , s1 , a1 , s2 , ...st−1 , at−1 , st }.
A final aspect we have not yet discussed is the nature of the reward function. Traditional RL specifications assume an external reward signal (known as an
‘external Critic’). However, as argued by Chentanez et al (2004), in animals the
reward signal is by definition derived from neuronal activations, and the Critic
therefore resides inside the organism. It therefore also incorporates information
from the internal environment, making all reward ‘internal’. Singh et al (2010)
identifies two types of internal reward: extrinsic internal and intrinsic internal (we
will omit ‘internal’ and simply use extrinsic and intrinsic from now on). Extrinsic reward is related to resources/stimuli/goals in the external world (e.g. food),
possibly influenced by internal variables (e.g. sugar level). In RL terms, extrinsic reward explicitly depends on the content of the sensory information (i.e. the
observed state). On the contrary, intrinsic reward is not dependent on external
resources, but rather derived from the agent-environment history g and current
model M . An example of intrinsic reward in animals is curiosity. Intrinsic reward
is domain-independent, i.e. curiosity is not related to any external resource, but
can happen at any state (dependent on the agent history g). In contrast, extrinsic
reward for food will never occur in domains where food does not occur. Intrinsic
motivation has been identified to serve a developmental role to organisms.

8

Moerland et al.

3 Survey structure and methodology
We intended to include all research papers in which reinforcement learning and
emotion play a role. We conducted a systematic Google Scholar search for ’Emotion’ AND ’Reinforcement Learning’ AND ’Computational’, and for ’Emotion’
AND ’Markov Decision Process’. We scanned all abstracts for the joint occurrence
of emotion and learning in the proposed work. When in doubt, we assessed the full
article to determine inclusion. Moreover, we investigated all papers citing several
core papers in the field, for example, Gadanho and Hallam (2001), Salichs and
Malfaz (2012), Broekens et al (2007a) and Marinier and Laird (2008). This resulted in 52 papers included in this survey. A systematic overview of these papers
can be found in Table 9 and 10.
The proposed taxonomy of emotion elicitation, type and function is shown in
Table 1, also stating the associated subsection where each category is discussed.
The elicitation and function categories are also visually illustrated in Figure 1, a
figure that is based on the motivated RL illustration (with internal Critic) introduced in Chentanez et al (2004). Figure 1 may be useful to refer back to during
reading to integrate the different ideas. Finally, for each individual paper the reader
can verify the associated category of emotion elicitation, type and function through
the colour coding in the overview Table 9.
There is one important assumption throughout this work, which we want to
emphasize here. We already introduced the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in RL at the end of the last section. Throughout this work, we
parallel extrinsic motivation with homeostasis (Section 4.1), and intrinsic motivation with appraisal (Section 4.2). The extrinsic/intrinsic distinction is clearly
part of the RL literature, while homeostasis and especially appraisal belong to the
affective modelling literature. We group these together, as the concept of extrinsic
motivation is frequently studied in combination with homeostasis, while intrinsic
motivation shows large overlap with appraisal theory. We will identify this overlap in the particular sections. However, the point we want to stress is that the
concepts are not synonyms. For example, it is not clear whether some intrinsic
motivation or appraisal dimensions also show homeostatic dynamics (a point at
which we tend to disagree with Singh et al (2010)). However, a full discussion of
the overlap and difference moves towards psychology, and is beyond the scope of
our computational overview. We merely identify the overlap we observed in computational implementations, and therefore discuss both extrinsic/homeostasis and
intrinsic/appraisal as single sections.

Table 1 Overview of categories in emotion elicitation, emotion type and emotion function.
The number before each category identifies the paragraph where the topic is discussed. Emotion
elicitation and function are also visually illustrated in Figure 1.
Emotion elicitation

Emotion type

Emotion function

4.1 Homeostasis and
extrinsic motivation
4.2 Appraisal and intrinsic
motivation
4.3 Value/reward-based
4.4 Hard-wired

5.1 Categorical
5.2 Dimensional

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

Reward modification
State modification
Meta-learning
Action selection
Epiphenomenon

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

9

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of motivated reinforcement learning based on Chentanez et al
(2004). Although traditional RL assumes an external Critic (to provide the reward signal), this
actually happens inside the brain of real-world organisms. Thereby the Critic also incorporates,
apart from external sensations, internal motivations to determine the current reward and state.
Motivations have been derived from homeostatic variables and/or internal models. The Critic
then feeds the state and reward to the Agent. The Agent usually learns a value function
(Adaptive Critic) and determines the next action (Actor). Note that ordinary RL, in which
the reward is a fully external stimulus, is still a specific case of this scheme (with the Critic
as identity function). Emotion elicitation (green) has been associated to A) Homeostasis and
extrinsic motivation (paragraph 4.1), B) Appraisal and intrinsic motivation (4.2), C) Reward
and value function (4.3) and D) Hard-wired connections from sensations (4.4). Subsequently,
the elicited emotion may also influence the learning loop. Emotion function (blue) has been
linked to I) Reward modification (6.1), II) State modification (6.2), III) Meta-learning (6.3),
IV) Action selection (6.4) and finally as V) Epiphenomenon (6.5).

4 Emotion elicitation

We identify four major categories of emotion elicitation: extrinsic/homeostatic
(4.1), intrinsic/appraisal (4.2), value function and reward-based (4.3), and finally
hard-wired (4.4).

10

Moerland et al.

4.1 Homeostasis and extrinsic motivation
Several computational implementations of emotions involve homeostatic variables,
drives and motivations. The notion of internal drives originates from the Drive
Reduction Theory developed by Hull (1943), which identifies drive reduction as a
central cause of learning. These innate drives are also known as primary reinforcers,
as their rewarding nature is hard-wired in our system (due to evolutionary benefit).
An example of a homeostatic variable is energy/sugar level, which has a temporal
dynamic, an associated drive when in deficit (hunger) and can be satiated by an
external influence (food intake). The reader might now question why machines
even need something like ‘hunger’. However, for a robot the current energy level
shows similarity to human sugar levels (and body integrity and pain show similarity
to a robot’s mechanical integrity, etc.). Thereby, homeostasis is a useful concept
to study in machines as well (see also the remark about bio-inspiration in the
Introduction). There is a vast literature on motivated reinforcement learning, see
e.g. Konidaris and Barto (2006) and Cos et al (2013), mainly for its potential to
naturally switch between goals. Early implementations of these ideas outside the
reinforcement learning framework were by Cañamero (1997a,b).
We denote a homeostatic variable by ht , where t identifies the dependency
of this variable on time. The organism’s full physiological state is captured by
Ht = {h1,t , h2,t ..hN,t }, where hi,t indicates the ith homeostatic variable. Each
homeostatic variable has a certain set point H ? = {h?1 , h?2 ..h?N } (Keramati and
Gutkin, 2011). Furthermore, each homeostatic variable is affected by a set of external resources, associated to a particular action or state. For example, a particular homeostatic variable may increase upon resource consumption, and slightly
decrease with every other action (Konidaris and Barto, 2006). More formally, denoting resource consumption by ā and the presence of a resource by s̄, a simple
homeostatic dynamic would be

hi,t+1

(
hi,t + ψ(st , at )
=
hi,t − 

if at ∈ ā, st ∈ s̄
otherwise

(5)

for a resource effect of size ψ(st , at ). We can also explicitly identify a drive as the
difference between the current value and setpoint, i.e. di,t = |h?i − hi,t | (Cos et al,
2013). The overall drive of the system can then be specified by
Dt =

N
X
i=1

θi di,t =

N
X

θi |h?i − hi,t |

(6)

i=1

where we introduced θi to specify the weight or importance of the i-th homeostatic
variable. Most examples take the absolute difference between current value and
setpoint (i.e. the L1 norm) as shown above. However, we can consider the space
of homeostatic variables H ∈ RN and in principle define any distance function in
this space with respect to the reference point H ? (see e.g. Figure 2 for a Euclidean
distance example).
The weight of each homeostatic variable (θi ) does not need to be fixed in time.
For example, Konidaris makes it a non-linear function of the current homeostatic
level hi,t and a priority parameter ρi,t : θi,t = f (hi,t , ρi,t ). The former dependence

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

11

Fig. 2 Schematic illustration of homeostasis and drives. The figure shows a two-dimensional
homeostatic space consisting (as an example) of energy (h1 ) and water level (h2 ). The set
point (H ? ) indicates the desired values for the homeostatic variables. At the current timepoint
t the agent’s homeostatic status is Ht (red). The associated drive Dt can be visualize as the
distance to the set point. Note that we use the Euclidean distance for the drive here (i.e. Dt =
||H ? − Ht ||2 ), while the text describes the L1 -norm example (i.e. Dt = ||H ? − Ht ||1 , equation
6). We are free to choose any distance metric in homeostatic space. After taking an action
the new homeostatic status becomes Ht+1 (green), in this case bringing both homeostatic
levels closer to their set point. The difference between the drives at both timepoints has been
associated to reward and joy (see Section 6.1). Figure partially based on Keramati and Gutkin
(2011).

allows priorities (i.e. rewards) to scale non-linearly with the sensory input levels (an
idea reminiscent of Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979)). The priority
parameters ρi,t can be estimated online, for example assigning more importance
to resources which are harder to obtain (i.e. that should get priority earlier). As a
final note on homeostatic RL systems, note that internal variables need to be part
of the state-space as well. One can either include all homeostatic variables and
learn generic Q-values, or include only the dominant drive and learn drive-specific
Q-values (Konidaris and Barto, 2006).
The connection between drives/homeostasis and emotions is partially reflected
in Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis (Damasio, 1994), stating that emotions
are the result of bodily sensations. In general, we identify two ways in which
homeostatic systems have been used to elicit emotions. The first elicits categorical
emotions from a subset of homeostatic variables, while the second derives an overall
well-being W from the sum of the homeostatic dimensions.
One of the first RL systems deriving emotions from homeostasis was by Gadanho
and Hallam (1998, 2001). They describe an extensive set of internal variables
(drives), including e.g. hunger (rises per timestep in lack of resources), pain (rises
with collisions), restlessness (rises with non-progress) and temperature (rises with
high motor usage). Emotions are related to these physiological variables, e.g. happiness is derived from the frequent motor use or decreasing hunger, sadness from
low energy, fear from collisions (with less sensitivity if the agent is hungry or restless), and anger from high restlessness. Similar ideas are put forward by Coutinho
et al (2005), who specifies a more biological homeostasis: blood sugar (increases
with food intake), endorphine (increases with play), energy (increases with bed
rest), vascular volume (increases with water intake) and body integrity (decreases

12

Moerland et al.

Table 2 Overview of most frequently investigated homeostatic dimensions, their associated
drive in case of deficit, and the papers in which example implementations can be found.
Homeostasic variable

Drive

Papers

Food/energy

Hunger

Water level

Thirst

Body integrity

Pain

Activity

Restlessness

Energy (movement)

Sleep/tiredness

Social interaction

Loneliness

(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001), (Salichs and
Malfaz, 2012), (Coutinho et al, 2005)
(Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Goerke, 2006)
(Tanaka et al, 2004)
(Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) (Coutinho et al,
2005)
(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Coutinho
et al, 2005) (Tanaka et al, 2004) (LeeJohnson et al, 2010)
(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Coutinho
et al, 2005) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012)
(Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) (Coutinho et al,
2005) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Goerke,
2006) (Tanaka et al, 2004)
(Salichs and Malfaz, 2012)

with obstacle collision). Similar examples of homeostatic emotions can be found
in Von Haugwitz et al (2012), Tanaka et al (2004) and Goerke (2006).
A second group of implementations first defines the overall well-being (W ). An
example of a well-being specification is
Wt = K − Dt = K −

N
X

θi |h?i − hi,t |

(7)

i=1

where K denotes a reference value. Compared to the previous paragraph, now all
internal variables (instead of subsets) are combined into a single emotion. Some
papers leave the specification of well-being as their emotion (Gadanho, 2003).
Others actually identify the positive or negative difference in well-being as happy
and unhappy (Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) or ‘hedonic value’ (Cos et al, 2013).
In conclusion, there have been numerous approaches to homeostatic systems
in emotional implementations. A summary of some of the most frequently encountered homeostatic dimensions is shown in Table 2. Although most papers
use slightly different specifications for their homeostatic dimensions, it is usually
a matter of labelling that does not affect the underlying principle. Homeostatic
variables provide a good way to naturally implement goal and task switching. The
implementation of this functionality usually involves reward modification, which
is covered in Section 6.1.

4.2 Appraisal and intrinsic motivation
Appraisal theory is an influential psychological emotion theory (see Section 2).
Appraisals are domain independent elements that provide (affective) meaning to
a particular stimulus. As such, they are a basis for emotion elicitation, as different
combinations of appraisal dimensions have different associated emotions. Examples
of appraisal dimensions are novelty, recency, control and motivational relevance.
These terms of course refer to abstract cognitive concepts, but in RL literature

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

13

they show a large overlap with intrinsic motivation features, being independent of
a specific external resource. Instead, they are functions of the agent-environment
interaction history g and derived model M :
ζj (s, a, s0 ) = fj (g, M )

(8)

th

for the j appraisal variable. Note that the current state and action are actually
included in g, but we emphasize that fj (·) is not a function of the actual content of
any state s (see Section 2.4 for a discussion of the extrinsic/intrinsic distinction).
Rather, fj (·) computes domain-independent characteristics, like ‘recency’ which
may be derived from g, and ‘motivational relevance’ which can be derived by
planning over M .
Intrinsic motivation is an active topic in developmental robotics (Oudeyer and
Kaplan, 2007). Singh et al (2010) shows how incorporating these dimensions as
extra reward provides better task achievement compared to non-intrinsically motivated agents (see Section 6.1). We discuss two implementations based on these
ideas more extensively: Marinier and Laird (2008) and Sequeira et al (2011). The
work by Marinier and Laird (2008) takes a diverse set of appraisal dimensions
based on Scherer’s appraisal theory (Scherer, 1999). These include both sensory
processing dimensions, like suddenness, intrinsic pleasantness and relevance, and
comprehension and reasoning dimensions, like outcome probability, discrepancy
from expectation, conduciveness, control and power. The implementation by Sequeira et al (2011) uses a smaller subset of appraisal dimensions: novelty, relevance,
valence and control. Note that these appraisal-based papers only elicit appraisal
dimensions, without specifying categorical or dimensional emotions on top (see
Table 9, i.e. appraisal papers with empty middle column).
We now highlight some appraisal implementations, both to concretize their
specification in MDPs, and illustrate the differences between models. Sequeira
et al (2011) specifies ‘motivational relevance’ as inversely related to the distance
to the goal. If we implement a planning procedure over our model M which returns
ˆ s◦ ) to the goal node s◦ from our current node s, then the
an estimated distance d(s,
associated appraisal variable for motivational relevance could be (Sequeira et al,
2011):
ζrelevance (s) =

1
ˆ s◦ )
1 + d(s,

(9)

Similarly, if we denote by c(s) the number of time-steps since node s was last
visited, then we can specify a ‘recency’ feature as (Bratman et al, 2012):
ζrecency (s) = 1 −

1
c(s)

(10)

This example intrinsic motivation vector ζ = {ζrelevance , ζrecency } is used in Section 6.1 to show its use in reward modification.
There are several more specifications in intrinsic motivation RL literature that
reflect appraisal dimensions. For example, Hester and Stone (2012a) maintain an
ensemble of transition models (by stochastically adding new data to each model)
and derive ‘model uncertainty’ from the KL-divergence (as a measure of the distance between two probability distributions) between the ensemble model’s predictions:

14

Moerland et al.

ζuncertainty (s, a) =

X

h
i
DKL Ti (s0 |s, a)kTj (s0 |s, a)

(11)

i6=j

for all pairs of models i and j in the ensemble. As a second example from their
paper, ‘novelty’ of a state-action pair is identified from the closest L1 -distance to
a historical observation:
ζnovelty (s, a) =

min

<si ,ai >∈g

khs, ai − hsi , ai ik1

(12)

Recently, Houthooft et al (2016) derive ‘curiosity/surprise’ from the KL-divergence
between the old and new transition models (i.e. after updating based on the observed transition):
h
i
ζcuriosity (s, a, s0 ) = DKL T (ω|gt , a, s0 )kT (ω|gt )
(13)
where T (ω) denotes the transition model parametrized by ω. Together, Equations
9-13 illustrate how intrinsic motivation and appraisal theory have modelled similar
notions, and gives a short illustration of the variety of concepts that are expressible
in the MDP setting.
It is also important to note that appraisal theory bears similarities to many
‘domain-independent’ heuristics developed in the planning community Russell et al
(1995). These of course include heuristics without a clear psychological or biological
interpretation, but we mainly emphasize the potential for cross-breeding between
different research fields. For example, some appraisal theories partition novelty
into three sub-elements: familiarity, suddenness and predictability (Gratch and
Marsella, 2014). Each of these seem to capture different computational concepts,
and such inspiration may benefit intrinsic motivation and/or planning researchers.
Vice-versa, psychologist could seek for results from the RL or planning literature
to develop and verify psychological theory as well.
There are several other implementations of appraisal dimensions, e.g. by Yu
et al (2015), Lee-Johnson et al (2010), Williams et al (2015), Si et al (2010),
Kim and Kwon (2010), Hasson et al (2011) and Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann
(2013). We also encounter a few explicit social dimensions, like social fairness (Yu
et al, 2015) and social accountability (Si et al, 2010), although the latter for example requires some symbolic reasoning on top of the RL paradigm. This illustrates
how current RL algorithms (for now) have trouble learning complex social phenomena. Some of the appraisal systems also include homeostatic variables (Yu et al,
2015). Both Williams et al (2015) and Lee-Johnson et al (2010) do not mention
appraisal in their paper, but their dimensions can be conceptualized as intrinsic
motivation nevertheless.
In summary, some appraisal-based dimensions require cognitive reasoning, and
are harder to implement. However, dimensions like novelty, motivational relevance
and intrinsic pleasantness are frequently implemented (see Table 3). Table 4 provides a more systematic overview of the actual connections to the RL framework.
These features usually require learned transition functions, recency features or forward planning procedures over the model space, which can all be derived from the
history g. Also note that a single concept may be interpreted in very different ways
(Table 4). For example, control and power have been derived from the transitions
function (Kim and Kwon, 2010), from the number of visits to a state (Sequeira

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

15

Table 3 Overview of frequently investigated appraisal dimensions.
Appraisal dimension

Paper

Novelty

(Sequeira et al, 2011) (Kim and Kwon, 2010) (Si et al,
2010) (Williams et al, 2015)
(Marinier and Laird, 2008)
(Marinier and Laird, 2008) (Sequeira et al, 2011) (Kim
and Kwon, 2010) (Si et al, 2010) (Williams et al, 2015)
(Marinier and Laird, 2008) (Sequeira et al, 2011) (Hasson et al, 2011) (Kim and Kwon, 2010) (Si et al, 2010)
(Williams et al, 2015)
(Marinier and Laird, 2008) (Sequeira et al, 2011) (LeeJohnson et al, 2010)
(Marinier and Laird, 2008) (Lee-Johnson et al, 2010) (Kim
and Kwon, 2010) (Williams et al, 2015)
(Yu et al, 2015) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013)
(Si et al, 2010) (Kim and Kwon, 2010)

Recency
Control/Power
Motivational relevance

Intrinsic pleasantness
Model uncertainty
Social fairness/attachment
Social accountability

Table 4 Overview of the five most frequently investigated appraisal dimensions (columns)
and their specific implementations in six appraisal-based papers (rows). The cell text indicates
which event causes the associated appraisal dimension to be high. Note that both Williams
et al (2015) and Lee-Johnson et al (2010) do not explicitly mention appraisal theory as their
inspiration, but they do derive emotions from dimensions encountered in appraisal theory. Only
the implementation of Marinier and Laird (2008) uses direct sensory information (for control
and intrinsic pleasantness), which would better fit with the hard-wired approach in Section 4.4.
All other specifications rely on (an aggregate of) the agent-environment interaction history,
for example on an estimated transition model T (s0 |s, a).
Novelty/
Suddenness

Control/
power

Motivational Intrinsic
relevance
pleasantness

Model uncertainty

(Kim and
Kwon,
2010)
(LeeJohnson
et al, 2010)
(Marinier
and Laird,
2008)
(Sequeira
et al, 2011)

Ratio
of
P
0
2
s0 T (s |s, a)
and T (s0 |s, a)
-

Entropy
reduction
by act sel.
-

High TD

-

-

Low mean
travel time

High time to
last state
visit
Low # visits
to state

Absence of
obstacles

Low dist. to
goal

Absence of
obstacles

Low belief
b(s) & high
goal distance
Mismatch of
model and
obs.
Low progress

Low dist. to
goal

(Si et al,
2010)

Low T of obs.
transition

Current
reward/
value ratio
-

(Williams
et al, 2015)

Unseen/seen
ratio
state-space

High #
visits to
state
Low dist.
to higher
value state
High
success/fail
ratio

High
absolute
TD
Part of task
finished

-

-

-

Low model
accuracy

et al, 2011), from a forward planning procedure (Si et al, 2010) and from the
overall success of the agent (Williams et al, 2015). We encounter a fundamental
challenge in the field here, namely how to translate abstract cognitive concepts to
explicit (broadly accepted) mathematical expressions.

16

Moerland et al.

4.3 Value function and reward
The third branch of emotion elicitation methods in RL focusses on the value and
reward functions. We can generally identify four groups: value-based, temporal
difference-based, average reward-based and reward-based (Table 5).
One of the earliest approaches to sequential decision making based on emotion
was by Bozinovski (1982); Bozinovski et al (1996), who considered emotion to be
the expected cumulative reward (i.e. the state-action value) received from taking
an action in that state. Thereby, Bozinovski actually developed a precursor of
Q-learning grounded in emotional ideas. Other implementations have also considered emotion as the state value. For example, Matsuda et al (2011) maintains a
separate value function for fear, which is updated when the agent gets penalized.
Recent work by Jacobs et al (2014) considers the positive and negative part of the
state as the hope and fear signal. Another value-based approach is by Salichs and
Malfaz (2012), who model the fear for a particular state as the worst historical
Q-value associated with that state. As such, their model remembers particular bad
locations for which it should be afraid.
A second group of value function related implementations of emotions are based
on the temporal difference error (TD). For Q-learning, the TD is given by
δ = r(s, a, s0 ) + γ max
Q(s0 , a0 ) − Q(s, a)
0
a

(14)

There has been extensive research in neuroscience on the connection between
dopamine and the TD. Following these ideas, there have also been implementations
connecting happiness and unhappiness to the positive and negative TD, respectively (Moerland et al, 2016; Jacobs et al, 2014; Lahnstein, 2005). Models based
on the temporal difference are robust against shifting the reward function by a
constant (a trait that is not shared by the models of the first group of this section). More recently, Moerland et al (2016) extended these ideas by deriving hope
and fear signals from anticipated temporal differences (through explicit forward
simulation from the current node).
Another branch of emotion derivations base themselves on the average reward. For example, Broekens et al (2007a), Schweighofer and Doya (2003) and
Hogewoning et al (2007) derive a valence from the ratio between short- and longterm average reward. Shi et al (2012) also derives emotions from the temporal
change in reward function, while Blanchard and Canamero (2005) uses the average reward. Other implementations interpreted the reward ifself as the emotional
signal (Moren and Balkenius, 2000; Balkenius and Morén, 1998; Ahn and Picard,
2006).
In conclusion, emotions have been related to the value function, temporal difference error or direct derivative of the reward function (Table 5). Note that some
implementations try to incorporate a time dimensions as well (besides only the
reward or value signal), e.g. Moerland et al (2016), Salichs and Malfaz (2012) and
Broekens et al (2007b).
4.4 Hard-wired
While all three previous groups used internal agent/robot aspects, a final category
specifies hard-wired connections from sensory input to emotions. A first group of

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

17

Table 5 Overview of elicitation methods based on value and/or reward functions. Implementations are either based on the raw value function, the temporal difference error, some
derivative of an average reward or from the raw reward function.
Method

Papers

Value

(Bozinovski, 1982; Bozinovski et al, 1996) (Matsuda et al, 2011)
(Jacobs et al, 2014) (Salichs and Malfaz, 2012)
(Moerland et al, 2016) (Jacobs et al, 2014) (Lahnstein, 2005)
(Broekens et al, 2007a) (Schweighofer and Doya, 2003) (Hogewoning
et al, 2007) (Shi et al, 2012) (Blanchard and Canamero, 2005)
(Moren and Balkenius, 2000; Balkenius and Morén, 1998) (Ahn and
Picard, 2006)

Temporal difference
Average reward
Reward

implementations use the detected emotional state of another person to influence
the emotion of the agent/robot (Hoey et al, 2013) (Ficocelli et al, 2015). Hasson
et al (2011) uses facial expression recognition systems to detect human emotion,
while Kubota and Wakisaka (2010) uses human speech input. Note that if these
agent emotions subsequently influence agent learning, then we come very close to
learning from human emotional feedback (as briefly described in Section 2.3).
There are several other implementations that pre-specify sensation-emotion
connections. In general, these approaches are less generic compared to the earlier
categories. Some use for example fuzzy logic rules to connect input to emotions
(Ayesh, 2004). Another example we encountered is the previous emotional state
(at t−1) influencing the current emotional state (Kubota and Wakisaka, 2010). An
example is the Markovian transition model between emotions in (Ficocelli et al,
2015), with similar ideas in (Zhang and Liu, 2009). This is a reasonable idea for
smoother emotion dynamics, but we still categorize it as hard-wired since it does
not explain how initial emotions should be generated.
Finally, there is also overlap with previously described elicitation methods.
For example, Tsankova (2002) derives an emotion (frustration) directly from the
collision detector. This is very similar to some homeostatic specifications, but
Tsankova does not include a body integrity or pain variable (i.e. it is therefore
not a homeostatic system, but the author does make the connection between pain
or non-progress and frustration). In conclusion, the hard-wired emotion elicitation
does not seem to provide us any deeper understanding about emotion generation
in RL agents, but the papers in this category may actually implement ideas from
different elicitation methods.

5 Emotion type
Having discussed the methods to elicit emotions, this section discusses which types
of emotions are specified. We cover both categorical (5.1) and dimensional (5.2)
emotion models. Note however that some appraisal theory-based papers only elicit
appraisal dimensions, without specifically identifying emotions (see Table 9).

18

Moerland et al.

5.1 Categorical
Most papers in the emotion and RL literature elicit categorical emotions. An
overview of the most occurring emotions and their associated papers is presented
in Table 6. Joy (or happiness) is the most implemented emotion by a wide variety of authors. We did not include the papers that specify a valence dimension
(see Section 5.2), but this could also be interpreted as a happy-sad dimension. A
few papers (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Tanaka et al, 2004) specifically address
Ekman’s six universal emotions (happy, sad, fear, anger, surprise, disgust), while
most papers drop the latter two emotions.
In general, happy, sad, fear and anger have been implemented in all elicitation
categories (homeostatic, appraisal and value-based). However, hope has mainly
been connected to value function based systems. The implementations of hope try
to assess anticipation (by addressing the value function (Jacobs et al, 2014), the
dynamics within a decision cycle (Lahnstein, 2005), or explicitly forward simulating from the current node towards expected temporal differences (Moerland et al,
2016)). Hope therefore needs a time component, a notion which is not directly
available from for example an extrinsic homeostasis dimension.
An overview of the most often elicited emotions (happy, sad, fear and angry) is
provided in Table 7. The table shows that different elicitation methods have been
associated to similar sets of categorical emotions. For example, anger (fourth column) has been associated to extrinsic homeostasis (e.g. hunger), intrinsic appraisal
(e.g. non-progress) and reward-based (decreasing received reward) elicitation. Note
that frustration, a closely related emotion, has been associated to obstacle detection (Tsankova, 2002) and non-progress (Hasson et al, 2011) as well. The other
three emotions in Table 7 have also been associated to each elicitation dimension,
as is easily observed from the colour coding.
Note that Table 7 also shows how different researchers apply different elicitation
methods within one paper (i.e. looking at rows instead of columns now). Moreover,
a few papers even combine elicitation methods for an individual emotion. For
example, Williams et al (2015) derives fear from a combination of pain (extrinsic)
and novelty (intrinsic/appraisal). It is important to realize that the elicitation
methods of the previous section are clearly only a framework. These are not hard
separations, and combining different approaches is clearly possible (and probably
necessary), as these papers nicely illustrate.
Finally, many included papers did not fully specify the implemented connections between elicitation method and emotion type, making it difficult to replicate
these studies. For example, Von Haugwitz et al (2012) only mentions the connections between homeostatic dimensions and emotions are based on fuzzy logic,
but does not indicate any principles underlying the real implementation. Similar
problems occur in (Tanaka et al, 2004), (Ayesh, 2004) and (Obayashi et al, 2012),
while (Zhou and Coggins, 2002) and (Shibata et al, 1997) leave the implemented
connections unspecified.

5.2 Dimensional
Relative to the number of implementations of categorical emotions, there is a
much smaller corpus of work on dimensional emotions (Table 8). The most im-

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

19

Table 6 Overview of categorical emotion implementations.
Categorical emotion

Paper

Joy/happy

(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Ficocelli
et al, 2015) (Tanaka et al, 2004) (Goerke, 2006) (Yu et al, 2015)
(Lee-Johnson et al, 2010) (Williams et al, 2015) (Hasson et al,
2011) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013) (Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) (Cos et al, 2013) (Moerland et al, 2016) (Jacobs et al,
2014) (Lahnstein, 2005) (Shi et al, 2012) (El-Nasr et al, 2000)
(Kubota and Wakisaka, 2010)
Sad/unhappy/distress (Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Ficocelli
et al, 2015) (Tanaka et al, 2004) (Yu et al, 2015) (Lee-Johnson et al,
2010) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013) (Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) (Moerland et al, 2016) (Jacobs et al, 2014) (Lahnstein,
2005) (El-Nasr et al, 2000) (Kubota and Wakisaka, 2010)
Fear
(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Tanaka
et al, 2004) (Goerke, 2006) (Yu et al, 2015) (Lee-Johnson et al,
2010) (Williams et al, 2015) (Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) (Moerland
et al, 2016) (Jacobs et al, 2014) (Matsuda et al, 2011) (Shi et al,
2012) (El-Nasr et al, 2000) (Kubota and Wakisaka, 2010)
Anger
(Gadanho and Hallam, 2001) (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Ficocelli
et al, 2015) (Tanaka et al, 2004) (Goerke, 2006) (Yu et al, 2015)
(Hasson et al, 2011) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013) (Shi
et al, 2012) (El-Nasr et al, 2000) (Kubota and Wakisaka, 2010)
Surprise
(Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Tanaka et al, 2004) (Lee-Johnson et al,
2010)
Hope
(Moerland et al, 2016) (Jacobs et al, 2014) (Lahnstein, 2005) (ElNasr et al, 2000)
Frustration
(Hasson et al, 2011) (Huang et al, 2012) (Tsankova, 2002)

plemented dimension is valence. Not surprisingly, valence has mostly been derived
from reward-based elicitation methods (Broekens et al, 2007a) (Ahn and Picard,
2006) (Zhang and Liu, 2009) (Obayashi et al, 2012) (Hogewoning et al, 2007).
It is also connected to a few extrinsic homeostasis papers (Coutinho et al, 2005)
(Gadanho, 2003), but then it is referred to as ‘well-being’. Although this is not
completely the same concept, we group these together here for clarity.
Following the dimensional emotion models of Russell and Barrett (1999) introduced in Section 2.1, the second most implemented dimension is arousal. Arousal
has been connected to extrinsic homeostatic dimensions (e.g. pain and overall
well-being (Coutinho et al, 2005)), appraisal-like dimensions (e.g. continuation of
incoming stimulus (Kuremoto et al, 2013)), and a few hard-wired implementations
(Ayesh, 2004) (Guojiang et al, 2010). Note that some do not use the term arousal
but refer to similar concepts, e.g. relaxation (Coutinho et al, 2005) and restlessness
(Ayesh, 2004). The only paper to extend the valence-arousal space is by Hoey et al
(2013), who also include control.
In general, the dimensional emotion models seem somewhat under-represented
compared to the categorical emotion implementations. Although the implementation for valence shows some consistency among papers, there is more difficulty
to specify arousal or different emotion dimensions. Nevertheless, the continuous
nature of dimensional emotion models remains appealing from an engineering perspective. A possible benefit is the identification of a desirable target area in affective space, towards which the agent aims to progress (Guojiang et al, 2010).

20

Moerland et al.

Table 7 Overview of four categorical emotion (columns) elicitations for different papers
(rows). The text in each cell specifies the elicitation condition. We observe different categories of emotion elicitation, i.e. homeostatic (blue, Section 4.1), appraisal (green, 4.2) and
value-based (red, 4.3). We see how single emotions are connected to different elicitation methods (multiple colours in single column) and how single papers use different elicitation methods
(multiple colours in single row).
Happy/Joy

Sad/Distress

Fear

Anger

(Gadanho and
Hallam, 1998)

High energy

Low energy

Pain

(Goerke, 2006)

All drives low

-

Homesick &
low energy

(Kim and
Kwon, 2010)

Goal
achievement

No goal
achievement

Pain

High
restlessness
(low progress)
Hunger &
homesick &
high energy
No progress

(Williams
et al, 2015)

Progress &
control & low
pain
Positive delta
well-being

-

Pain & novelty

-

Negative delta
well-being

-

(Moerland
et al, 2016)

Positive TD

Negative TD

Worst
historical
Q(s,a)
Anticipated
negative TD

(Shi et al,
2012)

Increasing
positive reward

-

Decreasing
positive reward

(Yu et al,
2015)

High
well-being

Egoistic agent
& low
well-being

Increasing
negative
reward
Agent defects
& others
co-orperate

(Salichs and
Malfaz, 2012)

-

Agent
co-orperates &
others defect

Table 8 Overview of dimensional emotion implementations.
Dimensional Paper
emotion
Valence

Arousal
Control

(Kuremoto et al, 2013) (Ahn and Picard, 2006) (Zhang and Liu, 2009)
(Broekens et al, 2007a) (Broekens, 2007) (Obayashi et al, 2012) (Hogewoning et al, 2007) (Hoey et al, 2013) (Guojiang et al, 2010) (Coutinho et al,
2005)
(Kuremoto et al, 2013) (Obayashi et al, 2012) (Ayesh, 2004) (Hoey et al,
2013) (Guojiang et al, 2010) (Coutinho et al, 2005)
(Hoey et al, 2013)

6 Emotion function
We now discuss the ways in which emotions may influence the learning loop. It
turns out emotions have been implicated with all main aspects of this loop: Reward
(6.1), State (6.2), Adaptive Critic (6.3) and Actor (6.4). Finally, emotion has also
been studied as an epiphenomenon, i.e. without any effect on the learning loop,
but for example to communicate the learning/behavioural process to other social
companions (6.5). These categories are visualized in Figure 1 (labels I-V). Note
that this Section introduces the ways in which emotion may influence the RL loop

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

21

on a conceptual level. We summarize the resulting effect, for example on learning
efficiency, in Section 7.

6.1 Reward modification
A large group of emotional RL implementations use emotions to modify the reward
function. These approaches add an additive term to the reward function that
relies on emotions (we have only encountered additive specifications). The reward
function is given by
rt = r̃t + rt4

(15)

where r̃(t) denotes the external reward function and r4 (t) an internal reward
based on emotional mechanisms. In the RL community, Eq. 15 is known as reward shaping (Ng et al, 1999). The internal reward can be targeted at maximizing
positive emotions, but is also frequently associated to homeostatic variables or
appraisal dimensions (see Sections 4.1 and 4.2 for elicitation). However, the general underlying principle usually remains that agents seek to maximize positive
emotions and minimize negative emotions.
Homeostasis. For homeostatic systems the reward becomes dependent on the current state of the internal homeostatic variables. Some implementations use the
difference in overall well-being,
rt4 = Wt − Wt−1 = Dt−1 − Dt

(16)

where the step from well-being W to overall drive D naturally follows from Equation (7). In this specification, the acquisition of food does not provide any reward
if the associated homeostatic variable (e.g. energy/sugar level) is already satiated.
Implementations of the above idea can be found in (Gadanho and Hallam, 2001),
(Salichs and Malfaz, 2012) and (Cos et al, 2013). Variants of this have focussed
on using positive emotions (instead of well-being) as the reinforcement learning
signal, e.g. in (Gadanho and Hallam, 1998) and (Goerke, 2006).
Appraisal-based. Similar ideas are used for appraisal-based reward modifications.
Some examples of appraisal dimension specifications were discussed in Section 4.2,
with some formal examples in Equations 9-13. Appraisal dimensions are related
to generic concepts of the agent history (novelty, recency, consistency of observations with world model) and expectations with respect to the goal (motivational
relevance, intrinsic pleasantness). Several studies in the intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning literature have identified the learning and survival benefit of
these dimensions (Oudeyer and Kaplan, 2007; Oudeyer et al, 2007). Some authors
therefore took appraisal theory as an inspiration to develop intrinsic motivation
features.
Specifications in this direction therefore usually take the following form:
rt4 =

J
X
j=1

φj ζj (gt )

(17)

22

Moerland et al.

for J appraisal variables and φj denoting the weight of the j-th appraisal dimension. We could for example use the two features in Equations 9-10, specifying an
agent that gets rewarded for motivational relevance and recency. Note that appraisal specifications usually do not include the difference with (t − 1), probably
because they are usually assumed not to satiate (i.e. no underlying homeostatic
dynamics). We also note that a reward bonus for novelty (e.g. as in Eq. 12) is in
the RL literature usually referred to as ‘optimism in the face of uncertainty’, i.e.
we want to explore where we have not been yet.
Sequeira et al (2011) actually tries to optimize the vector of weights φ (with
respect to overall goal achievement). In a more recent publication, Sequeira et al
(2014) also extends this work to actually learn the required appraisal dimensions
through genetic programming. Similar ideas can be found in Marinier and Laird
(2008). One of the problems with both implementations is the distance-to-goal
heuristic used by both emotion-based agents, which has access to additional information compared to the baseline agent (although the heuristic does not monotonically increase with the actual distance to goal). We discuss the empirical results
of these papers more systematically in Section 7.

6.2 State modification
Emotions have also been used as part of the state-space (learning emotion specific
value functions and policies). An example is the social robot Maggie (CastroGonzález et al, 2013). When fear is elicited it becomes part of the state-space
(replacing the dominant drive in a homeostatic system), which makes Maggie
learn fear-specific action values.
Some papers explicitly write Q(s, a, e), where e denotes the emotional state, to
illustrate this dependency (Ahn and Picard, 2006) (Ayesh, 2004). More examples
of such implementations can be found in (Zhang and Liu, 2009) (Ficocelli et al,
2015) (Obayashi et al, 2012) and (Matsuda et al, 2011). Hoey developed a POMDP
variant called Bayesian Affect Control Theory that includes the three-dimensional
emotional space (valence, control, arousal) of a companion (Hoey et al, 2013) and
the agent itself (Hoey and Schröder, 2015). There are also implementations that
use reinforcement learning to model the affective state of a human or group (Kim
and Cho, 2015), but note that this is a different setting (i.e. RL to steer human
emotional state instead of agent emotional state).
Using emotion to modify the state can also be seen as a form of representation
learning. There are not many architectures that learn the modification (most hardcode the emotion elicitation), with the exception of Williams et al (2015). Their
architecture has similarities to the bottle-neck structure frequently encountered
in deep neural network research, for example in (deep) auto-encoders (Goodfellow
et al, 2016). We return to the fully-learned approach in the Discussion (Section
8).

6.3 Meta-learning
The previous two sections showed how emotion has been implicated with determining both the reward and state, which together can be considered as the (Internal)

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

23

Critic. Afterwards, the state and reward are used to learn a value function, a process that is usually referred to as the Adaptive Critic (see Figure 1). The learning
process requires appropriate (and tedious) scaling of learning parameters, most
noteworthy the learning rate α (see Section 2.4).
The connection between emotion and these learning parameters was inspired
by the work of Doya (2000, 2002). He identified neuroscientific grounding for the
connection between several neurotransmitters and several reinforcement learning
parameters. In particular, he proposed connections between dopamine and the
temporal difference error (δ), serotonin and the discount factor (γ), noradrenaline
and the Boltzmann action selection temperature (β) and acetylcholine and the
learning rate (α).
This work inspired both Shi et al (2012) and Von Haugwitz et al (2012) to
implement emotional systems influencing these metaparameters. Shi identifies the
connections joy → δ, anger → β, fear → α and relief → γ, while von Haugwitz
changes only the latter two to surpise → (1 − α) and fear → (1 − γ).
Recently, Williams et al (2015) also investigated metaparameter steering in
navigation tasks. Together with (Sequeira et al, 2014) they are the only ones
to learn the emotional connections, and then post-characterize the emerged phenomena. Williams trains a classifier connecting a set of primary reinforcers (both
appraisal and homeostasis-based) to the metaparameters of their navigation algorithm. They train two emotional nodes, and only afterwards anthropomorphicized
these. One node learned positive connections to progress and control and negatively to pain and uncertainty, while it caused the robot to increase its speed and
reduce the local cost bias. In contrary, their second node was elicited by pain and
novelty, while it caused the opposite effect of node 1. They afterwards characterized
these nodes as ‘happy’ and ‘fear’, respectively.

6.4 Action selection
The final step of the RL loop involves action selection. This incorporates another
crucial RL challenge, being the exploration/exploitation trade-off. Emotions have
long been implicated with action readiness, and we actually already encountered
two papers steering the Boltzmann action selection temperature β above (as it
is technically also a metaparameter of the RL system). We next focus on those
papers that specifically target action selection.
One branch of research focusses on directly modifying the exploration parameter. Broekens et al (2007b,a) has done extensive investigations of the connections
between valence and the exploration/exploitation trade-off. In one implementation
(Broekens et al, 2007a) selection was based on internal simulation, where a valency
determined the threshold for the simulation depth. In another paper (Broekens
et al, 2007b) this valency directly influenced the β parameter in a Boltzmann
action selection mechanism. Schweighofer and Doya (2003) applied small perturbations to the exploration parameters based on emotion, and subsequently kept
the parameters if they performed better. Finally, Hogewoning et al (2007) investigated a hybrid system of Broekens and Schweighofer, trying to combine their
strengths.
Other papers use emotion to switch between multiple sets of value functions,
thereby effectively determining which set should currently be used for action se-

24

Moerland et al.

lection. For example, both Tsankova (2002) and Hasson et al (2011) use a high
frustration to switch between behaviour. Similarly, Kubota and Wakisaka (2010)
use several emotions to switch between the weighting of different value functions.
For example, happiness leads to exploration by selecting a value function derived
from inverse recency. Note that such a recency feature was used in the appraisal
section described previously, but there it modified the reward function, while now
emotion is used to switch between value functions. Although this technically leads
to similar behaviour, emotion intervenes at a different level.

6.5 Epiphenomenon
The final category of functions of emotions seems an empty one: Epiphenomenon.
Several papers have studied emotion elicitation in RL, without the emotion influencing the learning or behavioural loop. These papers usually focus on different
evaluation criteria as well (see Section 7). Examples of papers that only elicit emotions are (Coutinho et al, 2005), (Goerke, 2006), (Si et al, 2010), (Kim and Kwon,
2010), (Bozinovski, 1982; Bozinovski et al, 1996), (Jacobs et al, 2014), (Lahnstein,
2005) and (Moerland et al, 2016).
There can however still be a clear function of the emotion for the agent in a
social communication perspective (node V in Figure 1). Emotion may communicate the current learning and behavioural process, and also create empathy and
user investment. The potential of emotions to communicate internal state and enhance empathy is infrequently evaluated in current reinforcement learning related
emotion literature. This seems a fruitful direction when emotions serve to make
an agent or robot more sociable and likeable.
This concludes our discussion of emotion functions in RL agents. The full
overview is provided in Table 10, which mainly lists the categories per paper. The
most important connections between Sections 4-6 (i.e. column 1 to 3 in Table 9)
were described in the text and tables (e.g. Table 4 and 7).

7 Evaluation
This section systematically addresses the embodiment, test scenario and main
empirical results found in the different papers. A systematic overview of this section
is provided in Table 10.

7.1 Embodiment
We can grossly identify 5 embodiment categories: standard single agent, multiple
agents, screen agents, simulated robot and real robot. The standard agent setting usually concerns a (gridworld) navigation simulation in some environment
designed by the researcher. Some agents are also designed to appear on a screen
for interaction with a user (El-Nasr et al, 2000). Another group of embodiments
concern simulated or real robots. Simulated robots are based on models of existing real robots, i.e. they usually incorporate more realistic physics and continuous
controls.

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

25

There are also real robotic implementations in navigation and resource tasks.
However, several robotic implementations (especially those involving human interaction) use the robot mainly as physical embodiment (without moving much, for
example in a dialogue task). Overall, most implementations have focussed on simulated agents. It is important to note that most state-spaces stay relatively small, i.e.
sensory information usually has narrow bandwidth (or is assumed to be appropriately pre-processed). Although this facilitates interpretation, a remaining question
is whether the current emotion modelling methods scale to high-dimensional and
complex problems.

7.2 Test scenario
Emotion implementations have been tested in different scenarios: navigation tasks
with resources and/or obstacles, multiple agent interaction settings and humanagent/robot interaction tasks.
There is a wide variety of navigation tasks with additional (multiple) resources
and obstacles (with associated positive and negative rewards). When resources and
obstacles are non-stationary we usually see the terminology ‘prey’ and ‘predators’.
Within this group we mainly see navigation tasks with a single goal and multiple
obstacles (i.e. ‘mazes’ (Marinier and Laird, 2008) or robot navigation (Lee-Johnson
et al, 2010) (Williams et al, 2015)). A second group involves multiple resources,
which are mostly connected to underlying homeostatic systems to investigate behaviour switching. A few tasks also specifically include virtual enemies (Sequeira
et al, 2011) or humans with adversarial intentions (Castro-González et al, 2013)
(Tanaka et al, 2004).
A second, much smaller group of scenarios involves multiple agents in a social
simulation scenario, either a competitive (Von Haugwitz et al, 2012) (Yu et al,
2015) or co-operative one (Matsuda et al, 2011). The third category tests their implementation in interaction with humans. This can either involve a human dialogue
task (Ficocelli et al, 2015) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013) or physical
interaction with a human (Blanchard and Canamero, 2005) (Shibata et al, 1997).
In general, most papers have constructed their own scenario. We have not seen
any test scenarios being borrowed from other emotion-learning implementations,
nor from the general reinforcement learning literature. This makes it hard to compare different implementations amongst each other.

7.3 Main results
Finally, we discuss what empirical results were found by the various authors. We
identify three main categories in which emotions may be useful to the agent:
learning efficiency, emotion dynamics and human-robot interaction (HRI) (Table
10, third column).
Learning efficiency. Most authors in emotion-RL research have focussed on learning efficiency (see Table 10). Overall, emotions have been found beneficial in a
variety of learning tasks. Agents with emotional functionality achieved higher average rewards (Gadanho and Hallam, 2001; Sequeira et al, 2014; Yu et al, 2015) or

26

Moerland et al.

learned faster (Marinier and Laird, 2008; Ahn and Picard, 2006; Zhang and Liu,
2009). Others researchers focussed on the ability to avoid specific negative rewards,
like the ability to avoid collisions (Gadanho and Hallam, 2001; Lee-Johnson et al,
2010) and navigate away from obstacles (Shi et al, 2012). Other researchers report
improved behaviour switching, where emotional agents better alternate between
goals (Cos et al, 2013; Hasson et al, 2011; Goerke, 2006). Finally, some authors
specifically show improved exploration (Broekens et al, 2007b). Many authors that
focussed on learning performance do compare to a non-emotional baseline agent,
which is of course a necessary comparison. Altogether, the results show emotions
may be a useful inspiration to improve learning performance of RL agents.
Emotion dynamics. A second group of researchers focusses on emotion dynamics,
usually comparing the emergent emotion signals to known psychological theories.
For example, Jacobs et al (2014) showed patterns of habituation and extinction,
Moren and Balkenius (2000) reproduced blocking, while Blanchard and Canamero
(2005) observed approach and avoidance behaviour in their emotional agent. Other
researchers qualitatively interpret whether the emotion dynamics fit the (social)
interaction (Tanaka et al, 2004) (Moussa and Magnenat-Thalmann, 2013) or occurs
at appropriate states in the scenario (Moerland et al, 2016). Altogether, results
in this category show that emotion in RL agents might be a viable tool to study
emotion theories in computational settings.
Human-robot interaction. Finally, a third group of researchers focusses on humanrobot interaction evaluation. Their primary focus is to show how emotions may
benefit social interaction with humans, usually by taking questionnaires with the
participants after the experiment. Participants of Ficocelli et al (2015) report more
effective communication, participants of El-Nasr et al (2000) found the agent more
convincing, and participants of Shibata et al (1997) report an increased notion of
connection as well as increased perception of robot intelligence. Kim and Kwon
(2010) describe an enhanced pleasant feeling of the participant after the humanagent interaction. Therefore, there is clear indication that emotion in RL agents
may benefit an interactive learning setting. However, there are relatively few papers
in this category compared to the other two, and this may be a direction for more
research.

8 Discussion
This article surveyed the available work on emotion and reinforcement learning
in agents and robots, by systematically categorizing emotion elicitation, type and
function in RL agents. We first summarize the main results and identify the challenges encountered throughout the article.
Emotions have been elicited from extrinsic motivation (in combination with
homeostasis), intrinsic motivation (in combination with appraisal), value and reward functions and as hard-wired implementation. We want to emphasize again
that extrinsic motivation and homeostasis are not synonyms, nor are intrinsic motivations and appraisal (see Section 3). The hard-wired emotion elicitation seems
least useful, as it does not provide any deeper understanding about emotion generation, and is by definition hand-crafted to the task. The other three elicitation

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

27

methods are useful and appear to address different aspects of emotions. Homeostasis focusses on the inner resource status, appraisal on the inner model status
and value/reward focusses on the learning process. They seem to cover different
aspects of emotions. For example, surprise seems only elicitable from a model, joy
from food requires extrinsic motivation and homeostasis, while aspects like anticipated change need value functions. Finally, note that there remains slight overlap
among categories, i.e. they serve as a framework, but are not mutually exclusive.
This is also illustrated by the overlap among implementations in Table 7.
Regarding emotion types we observed a relatively larger corpus of categorical implementations than dimensional models. Although dimensional models are
appealing from an engineering perspective, they are usually implemented in 1D
(valence) or 2D (valence-arousal) space. This makes it challenging to implement
a diverse set of emotions. We do want to present a hypothesis here: dimensional
and categorical emotions may fit into the same framework, but at different levels.
Concepts like ‘well-being’, as encountered throughout this survey, do not appear
to be categorical emotions, but could be interpreted as valence. However, an agent
can have categorical emotions on top of a well-being/valence system, joining both
emotion types in one system. Similarly, arousal could be related to the speed of
processing of the RL loop, also entering the RL process at a different level.
Finally, emotion function could involve nearly every node in the RL loop:
reward, state, value function and action selection. It seems like all approaches
are useful, as each element targets a different RL challenge. The fifth emotion
function category (epiphenomenon) should get more attention because it involves
a different kind of usefulness (communicative). Although quite some papers are
focussing on emotion dynamics, there is less work on evaluating the potential
of emotions to communicate the learning process. Thomaz and Breazeal (2006)
found that transparency of the learner’s internal process (in their case through
the robot’s gaze direction) can improve the human’s teaching. We hypothesize
emotional communication to express internal state may serve a similar role, which
is a topic that could get more research attention in the future.
Advice for implementation. We expect this article is useful to engineers who want
to implement emotional functionality in their RL-based agent or robot. We advise
to first consider what type of functionality is desired. When the goal is to have
emotions visualize agent state, or have believable emotions to enhance empathy
and user investment, then emotions can be implemented as an epiphenomenon (i.e.
focus on Sections 4 and 5). The reader could for example first decide on the desired
emotion types, and then check which available elicitation methods seem applicable
(e.g. via Table 9). When one desires emotion function in their agent/robot as well,
then Section 6 becomes relevant. We advise the reader to first consider the desired
functionality, e.g. a more adaptive reward function, learning parameter tuning, or
modulated exploration, and then work ‘backwards’ to emotion type and emotion
elicitation. Readers may verify whether there are existing implementations of their
requirements through the colour coding in Table 9.
In general, we believe researchers in the field should start focussing on integrating approaches. This survey intended to provide a framework and categorization of
emotion elicitation and function, but it seems likely that these categories actually
jointly occur in the behavioural loop. We look forward to systems that integrate
multiple approaches. Moreover, we want to emphasize the paper by Williams et al

28

Moerland et al.

(2015) that took a fully learned approach. Their system contains nodes that were
trained for their functional benefit, and later on characterized for the emotion patterns. We expect such an approach to both be more robust against the complexity
problems encountered when developing integrated systems, and to transfer more
easily between problem settings as well.
Testing and quality of the field. We also systematically categorized the testing scenarios and evaluation criteria (Section 7 and Table 10). There are several points to
be noted about the current testing. First we want to stress a point already made
by Cañamero (2003), who noted that ‘one should not put more emotion in the
agent than what is required by the complexity of the system-environment interaction’. Many of the current implementations design their own (grid) world. While
these artificial worlds are usually well-suited to assess optimization behaviour, it
is frequently hard to assess which emotions should be elicited by the agent at each
point in the world. On the other hand, more realistic scenarios quickly become
high-dimensional, and therefore the challenge changes to a representation learning problem. Potentially, the advances in solving more complex AI scenarios with
(deep) RL (Silver et al, 2016; Mnih et al, 2015) may provide more realistic test
scenarios in the future as well.
There are two other important observations regarding testing and evaluation.
We have not encountered any (emotional) scenario being reproduced by other
researchers. This appears to us as an important problem. To enhance the standard of the field, researchers should start reproducing scenarios from other’s work
to compare with, or borrow from different RL literature. The second topic we
want to emphasize is the use of different evaluation criteria. Researchers should
choose whether they target learning efficiency, emotion dynamics or HRI criteria.
If learning performance is your criterion, then your implementation must include
a baseline. When you focus on emotion dynamics, then you should try to validate
by a psychological theory, or ideally compare to empirical (human) data. When
you focus on human interaction criteria, then this should usually involve a questionnaire. Although questionnaires seems to be consistent practice already, we did
observe authors reporting on a smaller subset of the questions (i.e. posing the risk
to have a few results pop out by statistical chance).
This brings us to a final problem in the field, being the thoroughness of the papers. Frequently we were unable to fully deduce the details of each implementation.
Indeed a full system description with all the details requires valuable space, but
on the other hand, a well-informed colleague reading a conference paper should be
able to reproduce your results. Only listing the homeostatic/appraisal variables
and the emotions that were implemented does not provide deeper understanding about how the system works. This also makes it harder to compare between
implementations. Differences in notational conventions and slight differences in
definitions further complicate comparisons. Paying attention to these aspects of
reproducibility, for example sticking to conventional RL notation (Sutton and
Barto, 1998), will facilitate broader uptake of the work in this field.
Future. A core challenge for the future will be to integrate all aspects into one
larger system, potentially taking a fully learned approach. Along the same line, it
is a remaining challenge of this field (and AI in general) to translate higher-level
(psychological) concepts into implementable mathematical expressions. Examples

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

29

of such translations can be found in Equations 9-13, and we expect comparing
different translations may help identify more consensus. At least the RL framework
provides a common language to start comparing these translations.
With social robots increasingly positioned at our research horizon, we expect
interest in emotion in functional agents to increase in the forthcoming years. However, the current implementations seldomly investigate the full social interaction.
Although this is a very high-level AI challenge, we believe research should focus in this direction to show empirical success. This involves all aspects of RL
in a social context, i.e. robots learning from human demonstration (LfD) (Argall
et al, 2009), learning from human feedback (possibly emotional (Broekens, 2007)),
human emotions influencing agent emotions, and agent emotions communicating
internal processes back to humans.
From an affective modelling perspective, it is promising to see how a cognitive theory like appraisal theory turns out to be well-applicable to MDP settings.
Apart from integrating important lines of emotion and learning research, this also
illustrates how cognitive and learning theories are not mutually exclusive. We hope
the affective modelling community will start to benefit from the literature on intrinsic motivation in RL as well (Bratman et al, 2012). A crucial requisite herein
will be improving the types of problems that (model-based) RL can solve. Many
scenarios that are interesting from an affective modelling viewpoint, for example
high-dimensional social settings, are still challenging for RL. Advances in deep
reinforcement learning (Mnih et al, 2015) might make more complex scenarios
available soon. However, for affective modelling we especially need the transition
function and model-based RL (Deisenroth and Rasmussen, 2011). Recent work has
also shown the feasibility of high-dimensional transition function approximation
(Oh et al, 2015) in stochastic domains (Moerland et al, 2017) under uncertainty
(Houthooft et al, 2016). Further progress in this direction should make the ideas
covered in this survey applicable to more complicated scenarios as well.

9 Conclusion
This article surveyed emotion modelling in reinforcement learning (RL) agents.
The literature has been structured according to the intrinsically motivated RL
framework. We conclude by identifying the main benefits encountered in this work
for the machine learning (ML), human-robot interaction (HRI), and affective modelling (AM) communities. For machine learning, emotion may benefit learning efficiency by providing inspiration for intrinsic motivation, exploration and for metaparameter tuning. The current results should stimulate further cross-over between
(intrinsic) motivation, model-based RL and emotion-RL research. For HRI research, emotions obviously are important for social interaction. More work should
be done on implementing emotion models in interactive reinforcement learning
algorithms, for which the survey presents a practical guideline on implementing
emotions in RL agents. For affective modelling, we conclude that cognitive theories
(like appraisal theory) can well be expressed in RL agents. The general benefits
of RL agents (they require little assumptions, are easily applicable to all kinds
of domains, and allow for learning) make them a promising test-bed for affective modelling research. This survey identifies opportunities for future work with
respect to implementation and evaluation of emotion models in RL agents.

30

Moerland et al.
Table 9: Systematic overview of emotion elicitation, emotion type and emotion function in the reinforcement learning loop (see Figure 1). Papers are ordered by their
elicitation method (first column). Note that for homeostatic specification, we try to
use the terms mentioned in the original paper, which may sometimes refer to the
drive (i.e. the deficit in homeostatic variable) rather than the homeostatic dimension itself. Colour coding is based on the first term mentioned in each cell, grouping
the categories as encountered in Sections 4-6 and Table 1.

Paper

Emotion Elicitation

Emotion Type

Emotion Function

(Gadanho
and Hallam,
1998,
2001)
(Gadanho,
2003)

Homeostasis:
hunger,
pain, restlessness, temperature, eating, smell,
warmth, proximity

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, fear, anger

Reward
positive
reward

Homeostasis: energy, welfare, activity

Dimensional: well-being

(Cos
et
al,
2013)
(Coutinho
et
al,
2005)
(Von
Haugwitz
et
al,
2012)

Homeostasis:
hunger,
tiredness, restlessness

Categorical:
value

Homeostasis:
blood
sugar, energy, pain, vascular volume, endorphine
Homeostasis: hunger, fatigue, interest

Dimensional: wellness,
relaxation, fatigue

Reward
modification:
delta well-being is reward
Reward
modification:
delta well-being is reward
Epiphenomenon

(Tanaka
et
al,
2004)
(Goerke,
2006)

Homeostasis:
hunger,
fullness, pain, comfort,
fatigue, sleepiness
Homeostasis:
fatigue,
hunger,
homesickness,
curiosity
Appraisal: valency, control, novelty, motivation

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, anger, surprise,
disgust, fear, neutral
Categorical: happiness,
fear, anger, boredom

Appraisal:
suddenness,
intrinsic
pleasantness,
relevance,
conduciveness, discrepancy from
expectation,
control,
power.
Appraisal: social fairness
Value: average reward

None

Reward
summed
reward

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, fear, anger

Appraisal: model mismatch
Value: average achieved
reward, global planned
reward
Homeostatic: collision
Appraisal:
novelty,
progress, control, uncertainty
Homeostatic: pain.

Categorical: Happiness,
sadness, fear, anger, surprise

Reward
modification:
positive/negative
emotion is positive/negative
reward
Reward
modification:
change
local
reward
(happy & suprise higher,
fear & anger lower)

Appraisal: motivational
relevance & congruence,
accountability,
control,
novelty.

None

(Sequeira
et
al,
2011,
2014)
(Marinier
and
Laird,
2008)

(Yu et al,
2015,
2013)
(LeeJohnson
et
al,
2010,
2007)
(Williams
et
al,
2015)

(Si et al,
2010)

hedonic

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, anger, surprise,
fear, disgust.

None

Categorical: happiness,
fear (post-characterized)

modification:
emotion
is

Metalearning: reward =
delta happiness, learning
rate = (1-surprise), discount factor = (1-fear),
Boltzmann temperature
= anger
Epiphenomenon: gesture,
voice, facial expression
Reward
modification:
positive
emotion
is
reward
Reward
modification:
summed
appraisals
added to reward function
modification:
appraisals is

Metalearning:
happy
gives positive reward
bias and higher travel
speed, fear giver negative
reward bias and lower
travel speed
Epiphenomenon

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

(Kim and
Kwon,
2010)
(Hasson
et
al,
2011)
(Moussa
and
MagnenatThalmann,
2013)
(Huang
et
al,
2012)
(Kuremoto
et
al,
2013)
(CastroGonzález
et
al,
2013;
Salichs
and
Malfaz,
2012)
(Ahn and
Picard,
2006)

(Zhang
and Liu,
2009)
(Broekens
et
al,
2007a,b)
(Moerland
et
al,
2016)
(Jacobs
et
al,
2014)

31

Appraisal: unexpectedness, motive consistency,
control,
uncertainty,
agency/accountability..
Appraisal: non-progress
Human affective state

Dimensional:
valence,
arousal (not fully explicit)

Epiphenomenon:
facial
avatar, voice, movement
of ears, music

Categorical: frustration,
anger, happiness

Action selection: switch
between targets

Appraisal:
desirability,
attachment (OCC model)

Categorical: joy, distress, happy for, resentment, sorry for, gloating,
gratitude,
admiration,
anger, reproach.
Categorical: Happy, sad,
anger, surprise, fear,
frustration
Dimensional:
valence,
arousal

Reward
modification:
reward is difference of
largest
positive
and
negative current emotion

Appraisal: motivational
relevance + goal reachable
Appraisal: distance to
goal,
continuation
of
eliciting event

Epiphenomenon

Action selection: separate emotional Q-value as
part of total summed Qvalue
Reward
modification:
delta well-being
State modification: fear
replaces dominant motivation (when threshold is
exceeded)

Value: worst historical
Q-value +
Homeostasis:
energy,
boredom, calm, loneliness

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, fear

Reward: difference between experienced reward
and expected immediate
reward of best two available actions
Reward: difference between experienced reward
and expected immediate
reward of best action
Reward: short versus long
term average reward

Dimensional:
good, bad

feeling

Action selection: emotional Q-value is part of
total Q-value

Dimensional:
good/bad

feeling

Action selection: emotional Q-value is part of
total Q-value

Value: Anticipated temporal difference

Categorical: hope, fear

Value:
temporal
difference
and
positive/negative
part
of
value
(Bozinovski, Value
1982)
(Moren
Value
and
Balkenius,
2000)
(Lahnstein, Value: temporal differ2005)
ence
(Obayashi
Reward: not explicit
et
al,
Hard-wired: not-explicit
2012)
(Matsuda
Reward: only negative reet
al,
ward
2011)
(SchweighoferReward: mid versus longand
term average reward
Doya,
2003;
Doya,
2002)

Dimensional: valence

Categorical: joy,
tress, hope, fear

dis-

Action selection: emotion
tunes exploration parameter and simulation depth
Epiphenomenon

Epiphenomenon

None

Epiphenomenon

None

Epiphenomenon

Categorical: happiness,
sadness, hope.
Dimensional:
valence,
arousal (with unlabelled
categories)
Categorical: fear

Epiphenomenon

None

State modification: emotion specific Q-value
Action selection: separate
emotional value function
is part of action selection
Metalearning: perturbation of discount, learning
and temperature parameter based on emotion.

32

Moerland et al.

(Hogewoning Reward: short/mid veret
al,
sus long-term average re2007)
ward

Dimensional: valence

(Shi et al,
2012)

Reward: change in reward signal

Categorical:
anger, relief

(Blanchard
and
Canamero,
2005)
(El-Nasr
et
al,
2000)

Reward: average

Categorical: comfort

(Kubota
and Wakisaka,
2010)
(Ayesh,
2004)

Hard-wired: from objects
(users, balls, chargers,
obstacles), speech and
previous emotional state
Hard-wired: from state
through fuzzy cognitive
maps
Human affective state
Hard-wired

(Ficocelli
et
al,
2015)
(Hoey
and
Schröder,
2015)
(Tsankova,
2002)
(Zhou
and Coggins,
2002)

Value: combined
fuzzy logic

with

joy,

fear,

Action selection: emotion
tunes exploration (combines (Broekens et al,
2007b) and (Schweighofer
and Doya, 2003) with chisquare test)
Metalearning: joy = TD,
anger = temperature,
fear = learning rate, relief = discount parameter
(connection not explicit)
Metalearning:
emotion
modulates the learning
rate

Categorical: joy, sadness,
disappointment,
relief, hope, fear, pride,
shame, reproach, anger,
gratitude, gratification,
remorse
Categorical: happiness,
sadness, fear, anger

Action selection: emotions are input to a fuzzy
logic action selection system

Dimensional:
neutral, stable

restless,

State modification: emotion specific Q-values

Categorical: happiness,
neutral, sadness, angry.

State modification
Action selection: modify
intonation of speech
State modification: extended POMDP derivation with 3D emotional
state
Action selection: emotion
controls the balancing between value functions
Reward
modification:
reward calculated from
maximum emotion or
motivation.

Hard-wired from object
observations (social interaction)

Dimensional:
valence,
control, arousal

Hardwired: from obstacle
detectors

Categorical: frustration

Hardwired: from sight of
resources
Homeostasis:
hunger,
thirst (not connected to
emotion but to reward)
Hard-wired: from sight of
enemy or resource.

None

(Doshi
and Gmytrasiewicz,
2004)
(Gmytrasiewicz
Hard-wired: Markovian
and
transition from previous
Lisetti,
emotions and state
2002)

Categorical: Contented,
elation, fear, panic.

(Guojiang
et
al,
2010)

Hard-wired: from exterior incentive like safety,
threat, fancy, surprise
(assumed pre-given)

Dimensional:
arousal

(Shibata
et
al,
1997)

Not explicit

Not explicit

Categorical:
Cooperative, slightly annoyed,
angry

valence,

Action selection: switch
between value functions

Action selection: emotion
adjust planning depth
and biases considered actions
Meta-learning: emotion
biases transition function
Action selection: emotion
biases available action
subset,
biases
value
function
State modification: 2D
emotional state space
Reward
modification:
agent should move to desirable area in emotional
space
(implementation
not specified)
Not explicit

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

33

Table 10: Systematic overview of test embodiment, scenario, evaluation criterion
and main results. Papers are ordered according to Table 9. Colour coding presented
for the evalution criterion column.
Paper

Embodiment

Scenario

Criterion Main result

(Gadanho
and Hallam, 1998,
2001;
Gadanho,
2003)
(Cos et al,
2013)

Simulated
robot

Multiple
resource
task

Learning

Less collisions and higher average reward
with emotional agent.

Gridworld
agent
Gridworld
agent
Multiple
agents

Multiple
resource
task
Multiple
resource
task
Game
/
competition

Learning

Emergent behavioural cycles fulfilling
different drives

-

No emotion results

Learning

Increased average reward compared to
non-emotional agents

Real
robot

Human
interacting
( hitting/
padding
robot)
Multiple
resource
task
Resourcepredator
task
Maze

Dynamics

Appropriate emotion response (fear and
joy) to bad and good acting person.

Learning

Different behaviour types with emotion
functionality

Learning

Improved average fitness compared to
non-appraisal agent

Learning

Emotional
episodes

Game / negotiation

Learning

Emotional/social agents have higher average reward and show co-operation

Simulated
robot

Navigation
task

Learning

Emotional agent has less collisions and
more exploration, against a higher average travel time

Real
robot

Navigation
task

Learning

Multiple
agents

Social
interaction

Dynamics

(Kim and
Kwon,
2010)

Real
robot

HRI

(Hasson
et
al,
2011)

Real
robot

(Moussa
and
MagnenatThalmann,
2013)
(Huang
et
al,
2012)

Real
robot

Social interaction
(question
game) with
human
Multiple
resource
navigation
task
Human
dialogue
task (while
playing
game)
Navigation
task

Less collisions with fear enabled, more
exploration with surprise, quicker routes
with happiness enabled.
Different appraisal with deeper planning
+ Social accountability realistically derived (compared to other computational
model).
Users report higher subjective feeling
of interaction and higher pleasantness
for emotional robot + humans correctly
identify part of the underlying robot appraisals based on a questionnaire
Robot with emotion can switch between
drives (in case of obstacles) and escape
deadlocks.

(Coutinho
et
al,
2005)
(Von
Haugwitz
et
al,
2012)
(Tanaka
et
al,
2004)

(Goerke,
2006)
(Sequeira
et
al,
2011)
(Marinier
and Laird,
2008)
(Yu et al,
2015,
2013)
(LeeJohnson
et
al,
2010,
2007)
(Williams
et
al,
2015)
(Si et al,
2010)

Simulated
robot +
real robot
Gridworld
agent
Gridworld
agent
Multiple
agents

Gridworld
agent

Learning

agent

needs

less

learning

Dynamics
+ Learning

Appropriate
emotion
responses
to
friendly and unfriendly users + learn
different attitudes towards them.

Dynamics

Dynamics show how emotion elicitation
varies with planning depth and goal
achievement probability.

34

(Kuremoto
et
al,
2013)
(CastroGonzález
et
al,
2013;
Salichs
and Malfaz, 2012)
(Ahn and
Picard,
2006)
(Zhang
and Liu,
2009)
(Broekens
et
al,
2007a,b)

Moerland et al.

Gridworld
agent
Real
robot

Predator
task

Learning

Quicker goal achievement for emotional
agent compared to non-emotional agent.

Multiple
resources
task
including
human
objects

Learning
+
Dynamics

Less harmful interactions compared to
non-fear robot + realistic fear dynamics
(compared to animal)

Agent

Conditioning Learning
experiment

Affective agent learns optimal policy
faster.

Simulated
robot

Navigation
task

Learning

Emotional robot needs less trials to learn
the task.

Gridworld
agent

Maze

Learning

Resourcepredator
task

Dynamics

Emotional control of simulation depth
improves average return. Emotional control of exploration improves time to goal
and time to find the global optimum.
Appropriate hope and fear anticipation
in specific Pacman scenarios.

Maze

Dynamics

Maze

Learning

(Moerland
et
al,
2016)

Gridworld
agent +
Pacman
(Jacobs
Gridet
al,
world
2014)
agent
(Bozinovski, Grid1982;
world
Boziagent
novski
et
al,
1996)
(Moren
Agent
and Balkenius, 2000;
Balkenius and
Morén,
1998)
(Lahnstein, Real2005)
robot

(Obayashi
et
al,
2012)
(Matsuda
et
al,
2011)

Gridworld
agent
Multiple
agent
gridworld
(Schweighofer Agent
and Doya,
2003;
Doya,
2002)
(Hogewoning Gridet
al,
world
2007)
agent
(Shi et al,
Grid2012)
world
agent
(Blanchard
and
Canamero,
2005)

Real
robot

Emotion dynamics (habituation, extinction) simulated realistically compared to
psychological theory.
First investigation of emotion as primary
reward, shows agent is able to solve maze
task.

Conditioning Dynamics
experiment

Agent shows habituation, extinction,
blocking (i.e. of learning signal, not emotion)

Multiple
objects
grasping
task
Maze

Dynamics

Models dynamics within single decision
cycle, shows plausible anticipation, hedonic experience and subsequent decay.

Learning

Emotional agent needs less steps to goal
(ordinary agent does not converge).

Cooperation
task

Learning

Emotional agents show more cooperation and adapt better to environmental change compared to nonemotional agents.
Dynamic adaptation of meta-parameters
in both static and dynamic environment. Task not achieved for fixed metaparameters.

Conditioning Learning
experiment
+
Simulated
pendulum
Maze
Learning

Obstacle
and
resource
task
Conditioning
task

Learning
+
Dynamics
Dynamics

Emotional agent cannot improve results
of (Broekens et al, 2007b; Schweighofer
and Doya, 2003)
Emotional agent avoids obstacle better.
Different emotion lead to different paths.

Robot can imprint desirable stimuli
based on comfort (reward) signal, and
subsequently show approach or avoidance
behaviour.

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

(El-Nasr
et
al,
2000)
(Kubota
and Wakisaka,
2010)
(Ayesh,
2004)
(Ficocelli
et
al,
2015)

Screen
agent

(Hoey and
Schröder,
2015)
(Tsankova,
2002)
(Zhou and
Coggins,
2002)

35

Human
interaction
task
Multiple
objects and
human

HRI

Users perceive agent with emotional action selection as more convincing.

Dynamics

Emotional robot avoids dangerous areas
due to fear, and starts exploring when
happy.

Real
robot
Real
robot

None

None

None

Human dialogue task

Effective emotion expression (user questionnaire) + Robot changing emotions to
satisfy different drives

Agent

Social
agent
interaction
Navigation
task.
Multiple
resources

HRI
+
Dynamics
+
Learning
Dynamics

Simulated
robot

Simulated
robot
Real
robot

(Doshi
Gridand Gmyworld
trasiewicz,
2004)
(Gmytrasiewicz
None
and
Lisetti,
2002)
(Guojiang
Agent
et
al,
2010)
(Shibata
Real
et
al,
robot
1997)

Multiple
resource,
predator
task
None (theoretical
model)

Learning
Learning

Learning

None

Conditioning Dynamics
task
Human
stroke/pad
robot

HRI

Model can accurately modify own dimensional emotion with respect to the client
it is interacting with.
Emotional robot reaches goal more often,
but need more timesteps.
Emotional robot has higher average reward and less intermediate behaviour
switching compared to non-emotional
robot.
Emotional agent (with meta-learning)
has higher average return compared to
non-emotional agent.
None

Agent moves towards beneficial emotional state-space and stays there.
Humans reported a coupling with the
robot, some reported it as intelligent.
Subjects report positive emotions themselves.

References
Ahn H, Picard RW (2006) Affective cognitive learning and decision making: The role of emotions.
In: EMCSR 2006: The 18th Europ. Meet. on Cyber. and Syst. Res.
Antos D, Pfeffer A (2011) Using emotions to enhance decision-making. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), vol 22, p 24
Argall BD, Chernova S, Veloso M, Browning B (2009) A survey of robot learning from demonstration.
Robotics and autonomous systems 57(5):469–483
Ayesh A (2004) Emotionally motivated reinforcement learning based controller. In: Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, vol 1, pp 874–878
Balkenius C, Morén J (1998) A computational model of emotional conditioning in the brain. In:
Proceedings of Workshop on Grounding Emotions in Adaptive Systems, Zurich
Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, DeWall CN, Zhang L (2007) How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review
11(2):167–203
Belavkin RV (2004) On relation between emotion and entropy. In: Proceedings of the AISB’04
Symposium on Emotion, Cognition and Affective Computing., AISB Press, pp 1–8
Blanchard AJ, Canamero L (2005) From imprinting to adaptation: Building a history of affective
interaction. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics, Lund
University Cognitive Studies, pp 23–30
Bozinovski S (1982) A self-learning system using secondary reinforcement. Cybernetics and Systems
Research pp 397–402
Bozinovski S, Stojanov G, Bozinovska L (1996) Emotion, embodiment, and consequence driven
systems. In: Proc AAAI Fall Symposium on Embodied Cognition and Action, pp 12–17
Bratman J, Singh S, Sorg J, Lewis R (2012) Strong mitigation: Nesting search for good policies within
search for good reward. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous
Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and
Multiagent Systems, pp 407–414

36

Moerland et al.

Breazeal C (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 59(1):119–155
Broekens J (2007) Emotion and reinforcement: affective facial expressions facilitate robot learning.
In: Artifical Intelligence for Human Computing, Springer, pp 113–132
Broekens J, Kosters WA, Verbeek FJ (2007a) Affect, anticipation, and adaptation: Affect-controlled
selection of anticipatory simulation in artificial adaptive agents. Adaptive Behavior 15(4):397–422
Broekens J, Kosters WA, Verbeek FJ (2007b) On affect and self-adaptation: Potential benefits of
valence-controlled action-selection. In: Bio-inspired modeling of cognitive tasks, Springer, pp 357–
366
Broekens J, Bosse T, Marsella SC (2013) Challenges in Computational Modeling of Affective Processes. Affective Computing, IEEE Transactions on 4(3):242–245
Calvo R, D’Mello S, Gratch J, Kappas A (2014) Handbook of affective computing
Calvo RA, D’Mello S (2010) Affect Detection: An Interdisciplinary Review of Models, Methods, and
Their Applications. Affective Computing, IEEE Transactions on 1(1):18–37, DOI 10.1109/t-affc.
2010.1
Cañamero D (1997a) A hormonal model of emotions for behavior control. VUB AI-Lab Memo 2006
Cañamero D (1997b) Modeling motivations and emotions as a basis for intelligent behavior. In:
Proceedings of the first international conference on Autonomous agents, ACM, pp 148–155
Cañamero D (2003) Designing emotions for activity selection in autonomous agents. Emotions in
humans and artifacts 115:148
Castro-González Á, Malfaz M, Salichs MA (2013) An autonomous social robot in fear. Autonomous
Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on 5(2):135–151
Chentanez N, Barto AG, Singh SP (2004) Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1281–1288
Cos I, Cañamero L, Hayes GM, Gillies A (2013) Hedonic value: enhancing adaptation for motivated
agents. Adaptive Behavior p 1059712313486817
Coutinho E, Miranda ER, Cangelosi A (2005) Towards a model for embodied emotions. In: Artificial
intelligence, 2005. epia 2005. portuguese conference on, IEEE, pp 54–63
Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam
Deisenroth M, Rasmussen CE (2011) PILCO: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy
search. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11), pp
465–472
Doshi P, Gmytrasiewicz P (2004) Towards affect-based approximations to rational planning: a
decision-theoretic perspective to emotions. In: Working Notes of the Spring Symposium on Architectures for Modeling Emotion: Cross-Disciplinary Foundations
Doya K (2000) Metalearning, neuromodulation, and emotion. Affective minds 101
Doya K (2002) Metalearning and neuromodulation. Neural Networks 15(4):495–506
Dunn BD, Dalgleish T, Lawrence AD (2006) The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 30(2):239–271, DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001, URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763405001053
Ekman P, Friesen WV, O’Sullivan M, Chan A, Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis I, Heider K, Krause R, LeCompte
WA, Pitcairn T, Ricci-Bitti PE, et al (1987) Universals and cultural differences in the judgments
of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of personality and social psychology 53(4):712
El-Nasr MS, Yen J, Ioerger TR (2000) Flame—fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions. Autonomous
Agents and Multi-agent systems 3(3):219–257
Ficocelli M, Terao J, Nejat G (2015) Promoting Interactions Between Humans and Robots Using
Robotic Emotional Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics pp 1–13
Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and
autonomous systems 42(3):143–166
Franklin S, Madl T, D’mello S, Snaider J (2014) LIDA: A systems-level architecture for cognition,
emotion, and learning. Autonomous Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on 6(1):19–41
Frijda NH, Kuipers P, Ter Schure E (1989) Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional
action readiness. Journal of personality and social psychology 57(2):212
Gadanho S, Hallam J (1998) Emotion triggered learning for autonomous robots. DAI Research Paper
Gadanho SC (2003) Learning behavior-selection by emotions and cognition in a multi-goal robot
task. The journal of machine learning research 4:385–412
Gadanho SC, Hallam J (2001) Robot learning driven by emotions. Adaptive Behavior 9(1):42–64
Gmytrasiewicz PJ, Lisetti CL (2002) Emotions and personality in agent design and modeling. In:
Game theory and decision theory in agent-based systems, Springer, pp 81–95
Goerke N (2006) EMOBOT: a robot control architecture based on emotion-like internal values.
INTECH Open Access Publisher
Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A (2016) Deep learning. MIT Press
Gratch J, Marsella S (2014) Appraisal models. Oxford University Press
Guojiang W, Xiaoxiao W, Kechang F (2010) Behavior decision model of intelligent agent based on
artificial emotion. In: Advanced Computer Control (ICACC), 2010 2nd International Conference
on, IEEE, vol 4, pp 185–189
Hasson C, Gaussier P, Boucenna S (2011) Emotions as a dynamical system: the interplay between
the meta-control and communication function of émotions. Paladyn 2(3):111–125
Hester T, Stone P (2012a) Intrinsically motivated model learning for a developing curious agent.
In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

37

(ICDL), IEEE, pp 1–6
Hester T, Stone P (2012b) Learning and using models. In: Reinforcement Learning, Springer, pp
111–141
Hoey J, Schröder T (2015) Bayesian Affect Control Theory of Self. In: AAAI, Citeseer, pp 529–536
Hoey J, Schroder T, Alhothali A (2013) Bayesian affect control theory. In: Affective Computing and
Intelligent Interaction (ACII), 2013 Humaine Association Conference on, IEEE, pp 166–172
Hogewoning E, Broekens J, Eggermont J, Bovenkamp EG (2007) Strategies for affect-controlled
action-selection in Soar-RL. In: Nature Inspired Problem-Solving Methods in Knowledge Engineering, Springer, pp 501–510
Houthooft R, Chen X, Duan Y, Schulman J, De Turck F, Abbeel P (2016) Curiosity-driven
Exploration in Deep Reinforcement Learning via Bayesian Neural Networks. arXiv preprint
arXiv:160509674
Huang X, Du C, Peng Y, Wang X, Liu J (2012) Goal-oriented action planning in partially observable stochastic domains. In: Cloud Computing and Intelligent Systems (CCIS), 2012 IEEE 2nd
International Conference on, IEEE, vol 3, pp 1381–1385
Hull CL (1943) Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century
Jacobs E, Broekens J, Jonker CM (2014) Emergent dynamics of joy, distress, hope and fear in
reinforcement learning agents. In: Adaptive Learning Agents workshop at AAMAS2014
Joffily M, Coricelli G (2013) Emotional valence and the free-energy principle. PLOS Computational
Biology 9(6)
Johnson-Laird PN, Oatley K (1992) Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cognition and
Emotion 6(3-4):201–223
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica:
Journal of the Econometric Society pp 263–291
Keramati M, Gutkin BS (2011) A reinforcement learning theory for homeostatic regulation. In:
Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 82–90
Kim HR, Kwon DS (2010) Computational model of emotion generation for human–robot interaction
based on the cognitive appraisal theory. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 60(2):263–283
Kim KH, Cho SB (2015) A Group Emotion Control System based on Reinforcement Learning.
SoCPaR 2015
Knox WB, Glass B, Love B, Maddox WT, Stone P (2012) How Humans Teach Agents. International
Journal of Social Robotics 4(4):409–421, DOI 10.1007/s12369-012-0163-x, URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s12369-012-0163-x
Knox WB, Stone P, Breazeal C (2013) Training a Robot via Human Feedback: A Case Study,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8239, Springer International Publishing, book section 46,
pp 460–470
Kober J, Peters J (2012) Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. In: Reinforcement Learning,
Springer, pp 579–610
Konidaris G, Barto A (2006) An adaptive robot motivational system. In: From Animals to Animats
9, Springer, pp 346–356
Kubota N, Wakisaka S (2010) Emotional model based on computational intelligence for partner
robots. In: Modeling machine emotions for realizing intelligence, Springer, pp 89–108
Kuremoto T, Tsurusaki T, Kobayashi K, Mabu S, Obayashi M (2013) An improved reinforcement
learning system using affective factors. Robotics 2(3):149–164
Lahnstein M (2005) The emotive episode is a composition of anticipatory and reactive evaluations.
In: Proc. of the AISB’05 Symposium on Agents that Want and Like, pp 62–69
Laird JE (2008) Extending the Soar cognitive architecture. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and
Applications 171:224
Lazarus RS (1991) Cognition and motivation in emotion. American psychologist 46(4):352
LeDoux J (2003) The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cellular and molecular neurobiology
23(4-5):727–738
Lee-Johnson CP, Carnegie D, et al (2007) Emotion-based parameter modulation for a hierarchical
mobile robot planning and control architecture. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2007. IROS
2007. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, IEEE, pp 2839–2844
Lee-Johnson CP, Carnegie D, et al (2010) Mobile robot navigation modulated by artificial emotions.
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on 40(2):469–480
Lhommet M, Marsella SC (2015) Expressing Emotion Through Posture and Gesture, Oxford University Press, pp 273–285
Lisetti C, Hudlicka E (2014) Why and How to Build Emotion-based Agent Architectures
Marinier R, Laird JE (2008) Emotion-driven reinforcement learning. Cognitive science pp 115–120
Marsella S, Gratch J, Petta P (2010) Computational models of emotion. K r Scherer, t Bänziger &
e roesch (eds), A blueprint for affective computing pp 21–45
Marsella SC, Gratch J (2009) EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics. Cognitive Systems
Research 10(1):70–90, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article
Matsuda A, Misawa H, Horio K (2011) Decision making based on reinforcement learning and emotion
learning for social behavior. In: Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2011 IEEE International Conference on,
IEEE, pp 2714–2719
Michaud F (2002) EMIB—Computational Architecture Based on Emotion and Motivation for Intentional Selection and Configuration of Behaviour-Producing Modules. Cognitive Science Quarterly 3-4:340–361

38

Moerland et al.

Mnih V, Kavukcuoglu K, Silver D, Rusu AA, Veness J, Bellemare MG, Graves A, Riedmiller M,
Fidjeland AK, Ostrovski G, et al (2015) Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning.
Nature 518(7540):529–533
Moerland TM, Broekens J, Jonker CM (2016) Fear and Hope Emerge from Anticipation in Modelbased Reinforcement Learning. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (IJCAI), pp 848–854
Moerland TM, Broekens J, Jonker CM (2017) Learning Multimodal Transition Dynamics for ModelBased Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:170500470
Moren J, Balkenius C (2000) A computational model of emotional learning in the amygdala. From
animals to animats 6:115–124
Moussa MB, Magnenat-Thalmann N (2013) Toward socially responsible agents: integrating attachment and learning in emotional decision-making. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 24(34):327–334
Murphy RR, Lisetti CL, Tardif R, Irish L, Gage A (2002) Emotion-based control of cooperating
heterogeneous mobile robots. Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on 18(5):744–757
Ng AY, Harada D, Russell S (1999) Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and
application to reward shaping. In: ICML, vol 99, pp 278–287
Obayashi M, Takuno T, Kuremoto T, Kobayashi K (2012) An emotional model embedded reinforcement learning system. In: Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2012 IEEE International
Conference on, IEEE, pp 1058–1063
Ochs M, Niewiadomski R, Pelachaud C (2015) Facial Expressions of Emotions for Virtual Characters,
Oxford University Press, pp 261–272
Oh J, Guo X, Lee H, Lewis RL, Singh S (2015) Action-conditional video prediction using deep
networks in atari games. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp 2863–2871
Ortony A, Clore GL, Collins A (1990) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge university
press
Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH (1964) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois
Press
Oudeyer PY, Kaplan F (2007) What is intrinsic motivation? a typology of computational approaches.
Frontiers in neurorobotics 1
Oudeyer PY, Kaplan F, Hafner VV (2007) Intrinsic motivation systems for autonomous mental
development. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on 11(2):265–286
Paiva A, Leite I, Ribeiro T (2015) Emotion modeling for social robots, Oxford University Press, pp
296–308
Parisi D, Petrosino G (2010) Robots that have emotions. Adaptive Behavior 18(6):453–469
Reisenzein R (2009) Emotional experience in the computational belief–desire theory of emotion.
Emotion Review 1(3):214–222
Rolls ET, Baylis LL (1994) Gustatory, olfactory, and visual convergence within the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of neuroscience 14(9):5437–5452
Rolls ET, Grabenhorst F (2008) The orbitofrontal cortex and beyond: from affect to decision-making.
Progress in neurobiology 86(3):216–244
Rumbell T, Barnden J, Denham S, Wennekers T (2012) Emotions in autonomous agents: comparative
analysis of mechanisms and functions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 25(1):1–45
Rummery GA, Niranjan M (1994) On-line Q-learning using connectionist systems. Tech. rep., University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering
Russell JA (1978) Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of personality
and social psychology 36(10):1152
Russell JA, Barrett LF (1999) Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called
emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of personality and social psychology 76(5):805
Russell S, Norvig P, Intelligence A (1995) A modern approach. Artificial Intelligence Prentice-Hall,
Egnlewood Cliffs 25:27
Salichs MA, Malfaz M (2012) A new approach to modeling emotions and their use on a decisionmaking system for artificial agents. Affective Computing, IEEE Transactions on 3(1):56–68
Scherer KR (1999) Appraisal theory. Handbook of cognition and emotion pp 637–663
Scherer KR, Schorr A, Johnstone T (2001) Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. Oxford University Press
Schweighofer N, Doya K (2003) Meta-learning in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks 16(1):5–9
Sequeira P, Melo FS, Paiva A (2011) Emotion-based intrinsic motivation for reinforcement learning
agents. In: Affective computing and intelligent interaction, Springer, pp 326–336
Sequeira P, Melo FS, Paiva A (2014) Learning by appraising: an emotion-based approach to intrinsic
reward design. Adaptive Behavior p 1059712314543837
Shi X, Wang Z, Zhang Q (2012) Artificial Emotion Model Based on Neuromodulators and Q-learning.
In: Future Control and Automation, Springer, pp 293–299
Shibata T, Yoshida M, Yamato J (1997) Artificial emotional creature for human-machine interaction.
In: Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1997. Computational Cybernetics and Simulation., 1997 IEEE
International Conference on, IEEE, vol 3, pp 2269–2274
Si M, Marsella SC, Pynadath DV (2010) Modeling appraisal in theory of mind reasoning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 20(1):14–31
Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, Van Den Driessche G, Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou
I, Panneershelvam V, Lanctot M, et al (2016) Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks

Emotion in Reinforcement Learning Agents and Robots: A Survey.

39

and tree search. Nature 529(7587):484–489
Singh S, Lewis RL, Barto AG, Sorg J (2010) Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning: An
evolutionary perspective. Autonomous Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on 2(2):70–82
Sutton RS (1988) Learning to predict by the methods of temporal differences. Machine learning
3(1):9–44
Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press Cambridge
Tanaka F, Noda K, Sawada T, Fujita M (2004) Associated emotion and its expression in an entertainment robot QRIO. In: Entertainment Computing–ICEC 2004, Springer, pp 499–504
Thomaz AL, Breazeal C (2006) Teachable characters: User studies, design principles, and learning
performance. In: Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer, pp 395–406
Thomaz AL, Breazeal C (2008) Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build
more effective robot learners. Artificial Intelligence 172(6):716–737
Thorpe S, Rolls E, Maddison S (1983) The orbitofrontal cortex: neuronal activity in the behaving
monkey. Experimental Brain Research 49(1):93–115
Tsankova DD (2002) Emotionally influenced coordination of behaviors for autonomous mobile
robots. In: Intelligent Systems, 2002. Proceedings. 2002 First International IEEE Symposium,
IEEE, vol 1, pp 92–97
Velasquez J (1998) Modeling emotion-based decision-making. Emotional and intelligent: The tangled
knot of cognition pp 164–169
Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Heylen D, Pelachaud C, Poggi I, D’Errico F, Schröder M (2012) Bridging the
gap between social animal and unsocial machine: A survey of social signal processing. Affective
Computing, IEEE Transactions on 3(1):69–87
Von Haugwitz R, Kitamura Y, Takashima K (2012) Modulating reinforcement-learning parameters
using agent emotions. In: Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems (SCIS) and 13th International
Symposium on Advanced Intelligent Systems (ISIS), 2012 Joint 6th International Conference on,
IEEE, pp 1281–1285
Watkins CJCH (1989) Learning from delayed rewards. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge England
Wiering M, Van Otterlo M (2012) Reinforcement learning. Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization
12
Williams H, Lee-Johnson C, Browne WN, Carnegie DA (2015) Emotion inspired adaptive robotic
path planning. In: Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2015 IEEE Congress on, IEEE, pp 3004–
3011
Yu C, Zhang M, Ren F (2013) Emotional multiagent reinforcement learning in social dilemmas. In:
PRIMA 2013: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, Springer, pp 372–387
Yu C, Zhang M, Ren F, Tan G (2015) Emotional Multiagent Reinforcement Learning in Spatial Social
Dilemmas. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26(12):3083–3096
Zhang H, Liu S (2009) Design of autonomous navigation system based on affective cognitive learning
and decision-making. In: Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2009 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, pp 2491–2496
Zhou W, Coggins R (2002) Computational models of the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex: A
hierarchical reinforcement learning system for robotic control. In: AI 2002: Advances in Artificial
Intelligence, Springer, pp 419–430

