Sparse Feature Selection Makes Batch Reinforcement Learning More Sample Efficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a statistical analysis of high-dimensional batch Reinforcement Learning (RL) using sparse linear function approximation. When there is a large number of candidate features, our result sheds light on the fact that sparsity-aware methods can make batch RL more sample efficient. We first consider the off-policy policy evaluation problem. To evaluate a new target policy, we analyze a Lasso fitted Q-evaluation method and establish a finite-sample error bound that has no polynomial dependence on the ambient dimension. To reduce the Lasso bias, we further propose a post model-selection estimator that applies fitted Q-evaluation to the features selected via group Lasso. Under an additional signal strength assumption, we derive a sharper instance-dependent error bound that depends on a divergence function measuring the distribution mismatch between the data distribution and occupancy measure of the target policy. Further, we study the Lasso fitted Q-iteration for batch policy optimization and establish a finite-sample error bound depending on the ratio between the number of relevant features and restricted minimal eigenvalue of the data's covariance. In the end, we complement the results with minimax lower bounds for batch-data policy evaluation/optimization that nearly match our upper bounds. The results suggest that having well-conditioned data is crucial for sparse batch policy learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".