Hybrid Reinforcement Learning Breaks Sample Size Barriers in Linear MDPs

Hybrid Reinforcement Learning (RL), where an agent learns from both an offline dataset and online explorations in an unknown environment, has garnered significant recent interest. A crucial question posed by Xie et al. (2022) is whether hybrid RL can improve upon the existing lower bounds established in purely offline and purely online RL without relying on the single-policy concentrability assumption. While Li et al. (2023) provided an affirmative answer to this question in the tabular PAC RL case, the question remains unsettled for both the regret-minimizing RL case and the non-tabular case. In this work, building upon recent advancements in offline RL and reward-agnostic exploration, we develop computationally efficient algorithms for both PAC and regret-minimizing RL with linear function approximation, without single-policy concentrability. We demonstrate that these algorithms achieve sharper error or regret bounds that are no worse than, and can improve on, the optimal sample complexity in offline RL (the first algorithm, for PAC RL) and online RL (the second algorithm, for regret-minimizing RL) in linear Markov decision processes (MDPs), regardless of the quality of the behavior policy. To our knowledge, this work establishes the tightest theoretical guarantees currently available for hybrid RL in linear MDPs.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer ujdT6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper studies hybrid RL in linear MDPs, aiming to address the problem of whether hybrid RL can improve upon the existing lower bounds established in purely offline and purely online settings, without relying on the single-policy concentrability assumption. By combining offline dataset with online interaction, authors introduce computationally efficient algorithms which achieve sharper error bound and regret bound in offline and online settings.

Strengths

Existing theoretical works of hybrid RL under function approximation mainly focus on PAC guarantees which are not tight and require stringent concentrability assumptions on the quality of the behavior policy. Motivated by the question of whether hybrid RL is useful (i.e. improving upon the existing lower bounds established in purely offline and purely online RL without relying on the single-policy concentrability assumption, which is raised by Xie et al. (2022b)), authors provide computationally efficient algorithms for both PAC and regret-minimizing RL for linear MDPs, without relying on single-policy concentrability. In particular, this work exhibits several interesting findings: 1. Algorithmically, two types of hybrid RL algorithms are introduced: an online-to-offline algorithm, which involves reward-agnostic online exploration followed by a pessimistic offline algorithm to learn an optimal policy; and additionally, an offline-to-online method that utilizes offline data to warm start an online algorithm. 2. Theoretically, authors show both algorithms improve upon existing sample complexity, which is measured with respect to either the PAC framework or the regret. This work demonstrates clear rationale and compelling motivation, while clearly articulates its main ideas throughout the draft. Thorough discussion of related works have been provided. It develops a better theoretical understanding of hybrid RL in linear MDPs, which potentially benefits future works for hybrid RL with functional approximation in this context.

Weaknesses

Below are several potential improvements that authors are suggested to consider: 1. It is better to summarize and highlight the main technical novelties in the main text. There exist extensive theoretical studies in either linear MDPs or in hybrid RL. It is still not quite clear throughout the main text what the main technical challenges are in achieving the optimal policy in the studied context and what the technical novelties are in improving existing theoretical results. It seems to me that the proofs closely follow Xiong et al. (2023) in offline RL, Wagenmaker and Pacchiano (2023) in reward-agnostic exploration and He et al. (2023) in linear MDPs. As a result, it is important to point out how the studied settings can be technically challenging, and what novel arguments are developed compared to existing works.

Questions

1. Could you highlight the main technical techniques / reason why Alg. 2 can achieve better regret compared to Tan and Xu, 2024 and Amortila et al., 2024 for the linear MDP case? 2. In the studied setting, if we consider general function approximation or a more general class of MDPs with linear structure, do you envision the current analysis and results can be utilized to improve existing bounds? 3. Could you comment on the optimality of the provided bounds, whether dependence on the parameters involved can be further improved? 4. Could you provide an intuitive explanation of concentrability coefficient? And what is the range that indicates good concentrability? In line 135, does $d^*$ represent the occupancy measure of the optimal policy?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

This is a theoretical work, no negative social impact.

Reviewer stbS6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper studies the hybrid reinforcement learning problem in the linear MDP setting. It provides two algorithms (one focused on improving the offline error and the other on improving the online error) with theoretical analysis on their sample complexity. Though the algorithms are not optimal in terms of sample complexity with respect to some problem parameters, it appears to be the state-of-the-art in the literature for the linear setting.

Strengths

The paper is clearly written; the problem formulation and assumptions are clearly stated. The theoretical results seem sound.

Weaknesses

Aside from the suboptimality in $d$ and $H$ already pointed out by the authors, another weakness is that Algorithm 2 has a pretty large minimum requirement for the size of the offline dataset.

Questions

It would be nice to discuss how Algorithm 1 compares with Algorithm 2, aside from the difference in approach (e.g., why isn’t one clearly better than the other). Why is $|A|$ in Line 303? If that is not a typo, then it seems to be another weakness of Algorithm 2, since the action space might not be discrete.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer 6qEJ6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

In this work, the authors develop sample and computationally efficient hybrid RL algorithms that are provably better than online-only and offline-only algorithms for linear MDPs. Without relying on the single-policy concentrability assumption, the authors take both online-to-offline and offline-to-online approaches to achieve no worse than optimal sample complexity, regardless of the quality of the behavior policy.

Strengths

This work demonstrates a thorough discussion of all relevant literature, while the results are extensively compared with existing methods. This work provides no worse than optimal sample complexity for two types of hybrid RL methods, which is non-trivial. The presentation is generally clear, and the appendix is well-organized. The proof appears sound from a quick skim.

Weaknesses

The assumption regarding Full Rank Projected Covariates seems to implicitly impose some constraints. No experimentation or code is included with the work, making it difficult to examine whether the proposed algorithms are efficient in practice.

Questions

Q: I am not familiar with Assumption 2: Full Rank Projected Covariates. Is it a common assumption? How practical is it in downstream applications? Q: HYRULE seems to be a straightforward generalization of existing algorithms. Could you please list the challenges in proving its regret guarantee? Q: It would be helpful if there is an experimental plan to verify the algorithms. A simple toy experiment plan should suffice. Minor suggestion: As mentioned in line 241, OPTCOV requires tolerance parameter. Should this parameter also listed in the input of RAPPEL (Algorithm 1)?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Same as weakness. This work focuses on the setting of linear MDPs, where the techniques may not be generalizable to other types of function approximations.

Reviewer SSHJ7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

The paper presents studies Hybrid Reinforcement Learning for linear MDPs, where Hybrid RL addresses the limitations of purely offline and online methods by combining offline data and online exploration. The paper introduces two specific algorithms: Reward-Agnostic Pessimistic PAC Exploration-initialized Learning (RAPPEL) and Hybrid Regression for Upper-Confidence Reinforcement Learning (HYRULE). RAPPEL is a online-to-offline approach where one first perform reward agnostic exploration to increase the coverage of the existing data and then perform offline RL method, and HYRULE performs offline-to-online method by starting LSVI_UCB++ with the offline data. Both methods shows improvement over preivous methods, and no worse than offline minimax and online minimax rate, respectively.

Strengths

1. The paper is well-organized, and the literature review is thorough. 2. The proposed method clearly improves on the previous hybrid RL method for linear MDPs, and the online part of the rate indeed of Alg.2 matches the online minimax rate of linear mdps. Overall the improvement of the result is solid. 3. The improvement of the result leverages existing algorithms that are (relatively) well-known as subroutines with intuitive modifications (plus sharper analysis at certain part), which are easy to relate to the literature and intuitive.

Weaknesses

1. There is no clear new techniques introduced in the paper. 2. The offline rates match the minimax rate only up to the coverage term - the minimax coveage is the single policy coverage, while the proposed algorithm and analysis depends on the all policy coverage.

Questions

see above

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

n/a

Reviewer 6qEJ2024-08-11

Thank authors for the careful responses and interesting additional experiments. The clarification of the assumptions sounds reasonable and consistent with the experiment design. Given the thoroughness of the rebuttal, I have no further questions and am pleased to increase the score.

Reviewer ujdT2024-08-12

I thank the authors for their detailed response. The studied settings are indeed interesting, and I do think the results of this paper will inspire future works in this direction. The current draft will absolutely benefit from incorporating the responses and clarification provided during rebuttal, which do contain a lot of useful information that was not captured in the initial draft. As a result, authors are suggested to carefully revise the draft and address the concerns raised by all reviewers. I am happy to raise my score for support, and look forward to your revision!

Reviewer SSHJ2024-08-13

I appreciate the author's efforts in addressing my concerns and improving the submission. I would appreciate if the techincal contributions can be highlighted more in the revised version. On that regard I would like to increase my score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC