Deep reinforcement learning (RL) works impressively in some environments and fails catastrophically in others. Ideally, RL theory should be able to provide an understanding of why this is, i.e. bounds predictive of practical performance. Unfortunately, current theory does not quite have this ability. We compare standard deep RL algorithms to prior sample complexity bounds by introducing a new dataset, BRIDGE. It consists of 155 MDPs from common deep RL benchmarks, along with their corresponding tabular representations, which enables us to exactly compute instance-dependent bounds.

We thank the reviewers for their insights and suggestions. Answers below will be included in expanded discussions in future versions of the paper. In the case of R3's car example, as long as states from 10 steps into the future are sampled This is discussed in L211-L215 in Section 6 "Practical Training of γ -Models". The only Monte Carlo trajectory estimates are in the final column for comparison.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) works impressively in some environments and fails catastrophically in others. Ideally, RL theory should be able to provide an understanding of why this is, i.e. bounds predictive of practical performance. Unfortunately, current theory does not quite have this ability. We compare standard deep RL algorithms to prior sample complexity bounds by introducing a new dataset, BRIDGE. It consists of 155 MDPs from common deep RL benchmarks, along with their corresponding tabular representations, which enables us to exactly compute instance-dependent bounds.

In off-policy reinforcement learning, a behaviour policy performs exploratory interactions with the environment to obtain state-action-reward samples which are then used to learn a target policy that optimises the expected return. This leads to a problem of off-policy evaluation, where one needs to evaluate the target policy from samples collected by the often unrelated behaviour policy. Importance sampling is a traditional statistical technique that is often applied to off-policy evaluation. While importance sampling estimators are unbiased, their variance increases exponentially with the horizon of the decision process due to computing the importance weight as a product of action probability ratios, yielding estimates with low accuracy for domains involving long-term planning. This paper proposes state-based importance sampling, which drops the action probability ratios of sub-trajectories with ``negligible states'' -- roughly speaking, those for which the chosen actions have no impact on the return estimate -- from the computation of the importance weight. Theoretical results show this reduces the ordinary importance sampling variance from $O(\exp(H))$ to $O(\exp(X))$ where $X < H$ is the largest subtrajectory with non-negligible states. To identify negligible states, two search algorithms are proposed, one based on covariance testing and one based on state-action values. We formulate state-based variants of ordinary importance sampling, weighted importance sampling, per-decision importance sampling, incremental importance sampling, doubly robust off-policy evaluation, and stationary density ratio estimation. Experiments in four distinct domains show that state-based methods consistently yield reduced variance and improved accuracy compared to their traditional counterparts.

Reinforcement learning (RL) theory has largely focused on proving minimax sample complexity bounds. These require strategic exploration algorithms that use relatively limited function classes for representing the policy or value function. Our goal is to explain why deep RL algorithms often perform well in practice, despite using random exploration and much more expressive function classes like neural networks. Our work arrives at an explanation by showing that many stochastic MDPs can be solved by performing only a few steps of value iteration on the random policy's Q function and then acting greedily. When this is true, we find that it is possible to separate the exploration and learning components of RL, making it much easier to analyze. We introduce a new RL algorithm, SQIRL, that iteratively learns a near-optimal policy by exploring randomly to collect rollouts and then performing a limited number of steps of fitted-Q iteration over those rollouts. Any regression algorithm that satisfies basic in-distribution generalization properties can be used in SQIRL to efficiently solve common MDPs. This can explain why deep RL works neural networks, since it is empirically established that neural networks generalize well in-distribution. Furthermore, SQIRL explains why random exploration works well in practice, since we show many environments can be solved by estimating the random policy's Q-function and then applying zero or a few steps of value iteration. We leverage SQIRL to derive instance-dependent sample complexity bounds for RL that are exponential only in an "effective horizon" of lookahead and on the complexity of the class used for function approximation. Empirically, we also find that SQIRL performance strongly correlates with PPO and DQN performance in a variety of stochastic environments, supporting that our theoretical analysis is predictive of practical performance.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) works impressively in some environments and fails catastrophically in others. Ideally, RL theory should be able to provide an understanding of why this is, i.e. bounds predictive of practical performance. Unfortunately, current theory does not quite have this ability. We compare standard deep RL algorithms to prior sample complexity bounds by introducing a new dataset, BRIDGE. It consists of 155 deterministic MDPs from common deep RL benchmarks, along with their corresponding tabular representations, which enables us to exactly compute instance-dependent bounds. We choose to focus on deterministic environments because they share many interesting properties of stochastic environments, but are easier to analyze. Using BRIDGE, we find that prior bounds do not correlate well with when deep RL succeeds vs. fails, but discover a surprising property that does. When actions with the highest Q-values under the random policy also have the highest Q-values under the optimal policy (i.e. when it is optimal to be greedy on the random policy's Q function), deep RL tends to succeed; when they don't, deep RL tends to fail. We generalize this property into a new complexity measure of an MDP that we call the effective horizon, which roughly corresponds to how many steps of lookahead search would be needed in that MDP in order to identify the next optimal action, when leaf nodes are evaluated with random rollouts. Using BRIDGE, we show that the effective horizon-based bounds are more closely reflective of the empirical performance of PPO and DQN than prior sample complexity bounds across four metrics. We also find that, unlike existing bounds, the effective horizon can predict the effects of using reward shaping or a pre-trained exploration policy. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/cassidylaidlaw/effective-horizon

Inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) algorithms often rely on (forward) reinforcement learning or planning over a given time horizon to compute an approximately optimal policy for a hypothesized reward function and then match this policy with expert demonstrations. The time horizon plays a critical role in determining both the accuracy of reward estimate and the computational efficiency of IRL algorithms. Interestingly, an effective time horizon shorter than the ground-truth value often produces better results faster. This work formally analyzes this phenomenon and provides an explanation: the time horizon controls the complexity of an induced policy class and mitigates overfitting with limited data. This analysis leads to a principled choice of the effective horizon for IRL. It also prompts us to reexamine the classic IRL formulation: it is more natural to learn jointly the reward and the effective horizon together rather than the reward alone with a given horizon. Our experimental results confirm the theoretical analysis.