Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has delivered strong results in domains such as Atari and Go, but it still suffers from high sample cost and weak transfer beyond the training setting. A common response is to reuse information from previously trained models through transfer, distillation, ensemble methods, or federated training instead of learning each target task from random initialization. The literature on these mechanisms is fragmented, and published comparisons are hard to interpret because tasks, baselines, and compute budgets differ. This paper presents a PRISMA-guided systematic review of empirical studies on pretrained knowledge reuse in DRL. Starting from 589 records retrieved from IEEE Xplore, the ACM Digital Library, and citation tracing, we screened 570 unique records and assessed 89 full texts. After applying the final eligibility criteria, 15 empirical studies remained in the main synthesis. We analyzed them qualitatively across three factors: source-target similarity, diversity among reused models, and the fairness of comparisons against from-scratch baselines. Three patterns recur across the surviving corpus. First, positive results are concentrated in settings where source and target tasks share substantial structure or where the method includes an explicit gating or alignment mechanism. Second, evidence for ensembles and federated aggregation is promising but sparse and mostly limited to narrow settings. Third, compute-matched comparisons are rare, which weakens claims about efficiency gains over stronger single-agent baselines. The paper contributes a narrower and internally consistent review scope, a study-level synthesis of empirical evidence, and a provisional independence spectrum that should be treated as a hypothesis for future benchmarking rather than a validated metric.
Reinforcement learning (RL) systems typically optimize scalar reward functions that assume precise and reliable evaluation of outcomes. However, real-world objectives--especially those derived from human preferences--are often uncertain, context-dependent, and internally inconsistent. This mismatch can lead to alignment failures such as reward hacking, over-optimization, and overconfident behavior. We introduce a dual-source uncertainty-aware reward framework that explicitly models both epistemic uncertainty in value estimation and uncertainty in human preferences. Model uncertainty is captured via ensemble disagreement over value predictions, while preference uncertainty is derived from variability in reward annotations. We combine these signals through a confidence-adjusted Reliability Filter that adaptively modulates action selection, encouraging a balance between exploitation and caution. Empirical results across multiple discrete grid configurations (6x6, 8x8, 10x10) and high-dimensional continuous control environments (Hopper-v4, Walker2d-v4) demonstrate that our approach yields more stable training dynamics and reduces exploitative behaviors under reward ambiguity, achieving a 93.7% reduction in reward-hacking behavior as measured by trap visitation frequency. We demonstrate statistical significance of these improvements and robustness under up to 30% supervisory noise, albeit with a trade-off in peak observed reward compared to unconstrained baselines. By treating uncertainty as a first-class component of the reward signal, this work offers a principled approach toward more reliable and aligned reinforcement learning systems.