Good Papers
NeurIPS 2026Deep RLU Virginia

Latent Q-Barrier Shielding for Safe In-Context Reinforcement Learning

Latent Q-Barrier shielding filters actions via predicted future costs to improve safe in-context reinforcement learning reward-safety tradeoffs under out-of-distribution deployment shifts.

Minjae Kwon, Amir Moeini, Shangtong Zhang, Lu Feng

Published 2026Atlanta Poster Session 3 · Thu, Dec 10, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall C1arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

83%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel13/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 3/5
medium 8/10
strict 2/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Safe in-context reinforcement learning (ICRL) adapts online from interaction history without test-time parameter updates while controlling episode cost under a safety budget. Under out-of-distribution (OOD) deployment shifts, pretraining-only safe ICRL can give poor reward-safety tradeoffs because the remaining budget affects behavior only through frozen policy conditioning, not an explicit action-level check against predicted future cost. We propose a latent Q-Barrier shield that learns a context representation, latent dynamics, and an ensemble cost critic before deployment. Without parameter updates, the shield infers context from history and filters or softly reweights candidate actions using the remaining budget and predicted future cost. We prove a conditional, error-decomposed barrier-margin result: a Q-Barrier-satisfying action leaves the next latent-budget state with an approximately budget-safe continuation under the learned critic, up to Bellman and latent-prediction errors. Across five safe ICRL benchmarks, the shield improves deployment-time reward-safety tradeoffs over a strong safe-ICRL baseline: after a short context window, it achieves higher return in four of five benchmarks while matching or lowering average episode cost in all five.