Optimistic Natural Policy Gradient: a Simple Efficient Policy Optimization Framework for Online RL

While policy optimization algorithms have played an important role in recent empirical success of Reinforcement Learning (RL), the existing theoretical understanding of policy optimization remains rather limited -- they are either restricted to tabular MDPs or suffer from highly suboptimal sample complexity, especial in online RL where exploration is necessary. This paper proposes a simple efficient policy optimization framework -- Optimistic NPG for online RL. Optimistic NPG can be viewed as a simple combination of the classic natural policy gradient (NPG) algorithm [Kakade, 2001] with optimistic policy evaluation subroutines to encourage exploration. For $d$-dimensional linear MDPs, Optimistic NPG is computationally efficient, and learns an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy within $\tilde{O}(d^2/\varepsilon^3)$ samples, which is the first computationally efficient algorithm whose sample complexity has the optimal dimension dependence $\tildeΘ(d^2)$. It also improves over state-of-the-art results of policy optimization algorithms [Zanette et al., 2021] by a factor of $d$. In the realm of general function approximation, which subsumes linear MDPs, Optimistic NPG, to our best knowledge, stands as the first policy optimization algorithm that achieves polynomial sample complexity for learning near-optimal policies.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer czwS8/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-03

Summary

This paper proposes a simple and efficient policy optimization method with rigorous theoretical guarantee. The algorithm combines the natural gradient ascent and the optimistic off policy evaluation and is computationally efficient. They provide the condition under which the algorithm is guaranteed to be efficient and can provably learn the optimal policy. The authors also gave three examples to show the efficiency of the algorithm: tabular case, linear function approximation and general function approximation. They show that their algorithm achieves the optimal dependence on d for linear case which improves the algorithm proposed by Zanette et al, 2021 by a factor of d. They also show that their algorithm is the first one to achieve polynomial sample complexity in general function approximation case. In general, the proof is sound and also the writing is very good and clear. I like the simplicity of their algorithm.

Strengths

1. The algorithm is simple, efficient and easy to understand. 2. They provide a sound argument of theory and the proof is sound to my knowledge. 3. In linear case, their algorithm achieves the optimal dependence w.r.t. the dimension d with computational efficiency. 4. Besides 3, they also provide the sample complexity in tabular and general function approximation case.

Weaknesses

I do not think this paper has any apparent weakness. Though, I still have some minor questions about it. 1. In Theorem 1, you claim the result holds with probability at least 1/2, and in Line 207-211, you claim that you can achieve the probability 1-\delta for any \delta with a sample complexity multiplies by a log factor. I understand that you only need to run the algorithm one for log(1/\delta) times, but how do you 'estimate the values of every output policy to accuracy \eps'? Can you show exactly how you do to achieve this? In this estimation stage, do you need to sample additional online data using the output policy or not? 2. In line 223-226, you claim the best sample complexity for policy optimization in the tabular case is H^4 S A / \eps^2. I am not sure whether this is true. Indeed, the Wu et al. you cited expressed their result in the form of regret, and you can of course uniformly sample one policy from the policies output in Wu et al and get the sample complexity. However, in this paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.13442.pdf), they propose the algorithm BPI-UCBVI for best policy identification (another name of 'policy optimization'?), and they showed the sample complexity to be H^3 S A / \eps^2 log(1/\delta). (This is the second algorithm in their paper and the first one is reward-free version. Even the traditional UCBVI algorithm should be able to achieve the H^3 S A / \eps^2 * polylog(1/\delta). I wonder whether they considered a different setting as you did and whether result you claimed is the best one. 3. In all three subroutines about OPE, you split the data into H even disjoint subset. Do you think this splitting is inefficient? I remember in some papers, such as this one (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.04895.pdf), they split the data into three instead of H subsets to reduce the sample complexity. Do you think this will help you further reduce the sample complexity in your algorithm?

Questions

/

Rating

8: Strong Accept: Technically strong paper, with novel ideas, excellent impact on at least one area, or high-to-excellent impact on multiple areas, with excellent evaluation, resources, and reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

a typo: Line 284: in the worse case --> in the worst case.

Reviewer LFfR7/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-06

Summary

The paper presents $\texttt{OPTIMISTIC NPG}$, a new algorithm that combines the natural policy gradient with optimistic policy evaluation to encourage exploration in online RL. The algorithm demonstrates computational efficiency and achieves optimal sample complexity in linear MDPs, outperforming existing state-of-the-art approaches. Furthermore, it extends to general function approximation, making it the first algorithm to achieve polynomial sample complexity for learning near-optimal policies in this broader setting.

Strengths

- The authors propose a computationally efficient policy optimization algorithm with improved sample complexity in $d$-dimensional linear MDPs. - The authors Introduce the first on-policy method in the exploration setting that achieves polynomial sample complexity, contrasting with previous off-policy algorithms. - The authors extend the linearMDP algorithm to a general function approximation algorithm, exhibiting polynomial sample complexity measured by the eluder dimension of a function class.

Weaknesses

- The technical novelty of the algorithm for a general function class appears unclear, and further explanation is needed on how to construct confidence sets when working with function classes beyond linear functions. - Excluding the issue of computational intractability, Subroutine 3 appears to be applicable to general function classes with bounded eluder dimension. For example, Dong et al. (2021) proved that "one-layer neural nets do not have polynomially-bounded eluder dimension," presenting an exponential eluder dimension. It is challenging to claim that the algorithm proposed in this paper is sample efficient for function classes with such characteristics. \-- Dong, K., Yang, J., & Ma, T. (2021). Provable model-based nonlinear bandit and reinforcement learning: Shelve optimism, embrace virtual curvature. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 26168-26182.

Questions

- On line 138, there appears to be a typo in the equation where $\psi$, a $d$-dimensional vector, is integrated with respect to s, resulting in a real number bound. - In comparison to traditional off-policy policy gradient algorithms, what practical advantages does the on-policy algorithm offer?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Since this is a theoretical paper, its direct societal impact seems to be neutral.

Reviewer 1VAU7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-07

Summary

This work proposes a simple-efficient efficient policy optimization algorithm for online RL. When specialized to linear MDPs, the algorithm improves the best known result by a factor of $d$. Moreover, this is the first efficient policy optimization algorithm under general function approximation.

Strengths

1 This work is well-written and well-organized. 2 This work showcase a generic policy optimization meta-algorithm can be sample efficient. 3 The theoretical guarantee outperforms the exisiting result in linear MDPs, and is the first sample efficient policy optimiztion algorithm under general function approximation.

Weaknesses

1 When specialized to tabular scenario, the result is worse than the best existing result. 2 Under linear MDPs, the dependency on $\epsilon$ is not optimal.

Questions

1 When specialized to linear MDPs, the algorithm is computationally efficient. When specialized to general function approximation, the algorithm is not computationally efficient due to the hardness of selecting optimitic Q-function in the confidence set. From what I know, [Ruosong Wang et al.] claims they developed a provably efficient (both computationally and statiscally) Q-learning algorithm. My question is that for the policy optimization under general function approximation, is it possible to devise a computationally efficient algorithm under the proposed optimistic NPG framework? 2 Can the authors comment on the subtle technical challenge in [Cai et al.] (linear mixture MDPs) in dealing with linear MDPs? Is the difficulty caused by covering number argument? [Ruosong Wang et al.] Reinforcement Learning with General Value Function Approximation: Provably Efficient Approach via Bounded Eluder Dimension

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer EF4H7/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-23

Summary

This paper proposes optimistic NPG for online RL, which is computationally efficient and enjoys the polynomial sample complexity while learning near-optimal policies. The paper is well-written and organization is clear.

Strengths

There are several strengths: 1. Sample complexity benefits: compared with other computationally efficient policy optimization algorithms, the proposed algorithm in this work has better sample complexity guarantees; (I think this is the major strength) 2. The first polynomially sampled policy optimization algorithm under general function approximation. 3. Literature comparison and position is clear. The paper is well-written!

Weaknesses

I think this paper is clear and I do not have concern for now.

Questions

I do not have question on this paper for now.

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

As the authors mentioned in the Conclusions Section, I am also curious how to avoid the factor of 1/epsilon compared with the optimal rate.

Reviewer BU1M7/10 · confidence 3/52023-08-01

Summary

This paper presents a model-free policy optimization algorithm Optimistic Natural Policy Gradient for online and episodic MDPs. The authors present sample complexity results which are better than existing results for linear MDPs. This makes it computationally efficient and optimal dimension dependence, first of its kind. The algorithm is also similar to popular RL algorithms like PPO which makes it even more interesting.

Strengths

Technically solid paper with state of the art sample complexity results. The contributions are very well highlighted. The details of the algorithm are well presented by highlighting the key three modules in the algorithm. The paper also studies the online exploration scenario without access to a simulator.

Weaknesses

Agarwal et. al [2020] did have some experimental results on some environments to verify indeed the proposed algorithm enjoys what is proved theoretically. In this paper, any experimental proof of "computationally efficient" is missing.

Questions

1. Zanette et al [2020] were able to improve the sample complexity of FQI-style algorithm by paying the price in computation. What is that the proposed algorithm compensates on, if anything, to achieve optimal rates?

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

-

Reviewer LFfR2023-08-14

Thank you for the detailed response. It is helpful in understanding the paper. As a result, I have adjusted the scores accordingly.

Reviewer 1VAU2023-08-16

I thank the authors for their response. I am keeping my score.

Reviewer czwS2023-08-17

Thanks the authors for answering my questions! This is a very good paper. I will keep the positive score.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC