Are Expressive Models Truly Necessary for Offline RL?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among various branches of offline reinforcement learning (RL) methods, goal-conditioned supervised learning (GCSL) has gained increasing popularity as it formulates the offline RL problem as a sequential modeling task, therefore bypassing the notoriously difficult credit assignment challenge of value learning in conventional RL paradigm. Sequential modeling, however, requires capturing accurate dynamics across long horizons in trajectory data to ensure reasonable policy performance. To meet this requirement, leveraging large, expressive models has become a popular choice in recent literature, which, however, comes at the cost of significantly increased computation and inference latency. Contradictory yet promising, we reveal that lightweight models as simple as shallow 2-layer MLPs, can also enjoy accurate dynamics consistency and significantly reduced sequential modeling errors against large expressive models by adopting a simple recursive planning scheme: recursively planning coarse-grained future sub-goals based on current and target information, and then executes the action with a goal-conditioned policy learned from data relabeled with these sub-goal ground truths. We term our method as Recursive Skip-Step Planning (RSP). Simple yet effective, RSP enjoys great efficiency improvements thanks to its lightweight structure, and substantially outperforms existing methods, reaching new SOTA performances on the D4RL benchmark, especially in multi-stage long-horizon tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".