We propose a novel approach to addressing two fundamental challenges in Model-based Reinforcement Learning (MBRL): the computational expense of repeatedly finding a good policy in the learned model, and the objective mismatch between model fitting and policy computation. Our "lazy" method leverages a novel unified objective, Performance Difference via Advantage in Model, to capture the performance difference between the learned policy and expert policy under the true dynamics. This objective demonstrates that optimizing the expected policy advantage in the learned model under an exploration distribution is sufficient for policy computation, resulting in a significant boost in computational efficiency compared to traditional planning methods. Additionally, the unified objective uses a value moment matching term for model fitting, which is aligned with the model's usage during policy computation. We present two no-regret algorithms to optimize the proposed objective, and demonstrate their statistical and computational gains compared to existing MBRL methods through simulated benchmarks.

Given access to accurate dynamical models, modern planning approaches are effective in computing feasible and optimal plans for repetitive robotic tasks. However, it is difficult to model the true dynamics of the real world before execution, especially for tasks requiring interactions with objects whose parameters are unknown. A recent planning approach, CMAX, tackles this problem by adapting the planner online during execution to bias the resulting plans away from inaccurately modeled regions. CMAX, while being provably guaranteed to reach the goal, requires strong assumptions on the accuracy of the model used for planning and fails to improve the quality of the solution over repetitions of the same task. In this paper we propose CMAX++, an approach that leverages real-world experience to improve the quality of resulting plans over successive repetitions of a robotic task. CMAX++ achieves this by integrating model-free learning using acquired experience with model-based planning using the potentially inaccurate model. We provide provable guarantees on the completeness and asymptotic convergence of CMAX++ to the optimal path cost as the number of repetitions increases. CMAX++ is also shown to outperform baselines in simulated robotic tasks including 3D mobile robot navigation where the track friction is incorrectly modeled, and a 7D pick-and-place task where the mass of the object is unknown leading to discrepancy between true and modeled dynamics.

We study Imitation Learning (IL) from Observations alone (ILFO) in large-scale MDPs. While most IL algorithms rely on an expert to directly provide actions to the learner, in this setting the expert only supplies sequences of observations. We design a new model-free algorithm for ILFO, Forward Adversarial Imitation Learning (FAIL), which learns a sequence of time-dependent policies by minimizing an Integral Probability Metric between the observation distributions of the expert policy and the learner. FAIL is the first provably efficient algorithm in ILFO setting, which learns a near-optimal policy with a number of samples that is polynomial in all relevant parameters but independent of the number of unique observations. The resulting theory extends the domain of provably sample efficient learning algorithms beyond existing results, which typically only consider tabular reinforcement learning settings or settings that require access to a near-optimal reset distribution. We also investigate the extension of FAIL in a model-based setting. Finally we demonstrate the efficacy of FAIL on multiple OpenAI Gym control tasks.

Black-box optimizers that explore in parameter space have often been shown to outperform more sophisticated action space exploration methods developed specifically for the reinforcement learning problem. We examine these black-box methods closely to identify situations in which they are worse than action space exploration methods and those in which they are superior. Through simple theoretical analyses, we prove that complexity of exploration in parameter space depends on the dimensionality of parameter space, while complexity of exploration in action space depends on both the dimensionality of action space and horizon length. This is also demonstrated empirically by comparing simple exploration methods on several model problems, including Contextual Bandit, Linear Regression and Reinforcement Learning in continuous control.