Offline reinforcement learning (RL) aims to find optimal policies in dynamic environments in order to maximize the expected total rewards by leveraging pre-collected data. Learning from heterogeneous data is one of the fundamental challenges in offline RL. Traditional methods focus on learning an optimal policy for all individuals with pre-collected data from a single episode or homogeneous batch episodes, and thus, may result in a suboptimal policy for a heterogeneous population. In this paper, we propose an individualized offline policy optimization framework for heterogeneous time-stationary Markov decision processes (MDPs). The proposed heterogeneous model with individual latent variables enables us to efficiently estimate the individual Q-functions, and our Penalized Pessimistic Personalized Policy Learning (P4L) algorithm guarantees a fast rate on the average regret under a weak partial coverage assumption on behavior policies. In addition, our simulation studies and a real data application demonstrate the superior numerical performance of the proposed method compared with existing methods.
Figures & tables
Parameters
Subgroup (a)
Subgroup (b)
Subgroup (c)
c1i
0
0.6
-0.7
c2i
-0.6
0.4
0.5
Table 1: State transition parameters for individual i from different groups.
Figure 1: Boxplots for values of estimated policies for n=30,60 and T=50,100 and 200. Red dashed lines separate three groups (a), (b) and (c). In each group, the blue dotted line separates the P4L method of different K from the benchmark methods.
Figure 2: OpenAI CartPole environment.
CartPole (length/force)
Setting (A)
(2/0.85)
(5/0.85)
(10/0.85)
P4L (K=2)
58.0±12.7
72.8±16.8
121.1±31.7
P4L (K=3)
92.4±17.6
182.8 ±4.3
226.0 ±12.3
P4L (K=4)
74.3±16.8
179.6±8.3
165.5±29.5
P4L (K=5)
86.2±9.3
163.2±13.5
192.8±23.0
P4L (K=Auto)
98.2 ±12.1
174.2±6.9
213.0±19.0
Table 2: Values of learned policies from five RL methods on CartPole with different settings. Values in braces are standard errors. In Setting (A), we fix the force at 0.85 and let length vary from 2 to 10. In Setting (B), we fix the length at 5 and let force vary from 2 to 10. In Setting (C), we mix three different combinations of (length/force).
Method
Clinician
P4L
ACPI
VL
FQI
Value
-6.13 (1.82)
-5.40 (2.10)
-6.54 (2.31)
-7.32 (2.55)
-7.09 (2.65)
Table 3: Values of learning optimal policies with standard errors in parentheses.
Figure 3: Values of learned optimal policies estimated by PerSim.
Figure 4: The structure of the neural network in the empirical study.
Figure 5: Boxplots for values of estimated policies for n=30,60 and 150 and T=50,100 and 200. Red dashed lines separate three groups (a), (b) and (c). In each group, the blue dotted line separates the P4L method of different K from the benchmark methods.
Figure 6: MountainCar and CartPole environments.
MountainCar (gravity)
Settings
(0.01)
(0.025)
(0.035)
P4L (K=2)
-106.3±44.1
-432.3±117
-471.8±43.0
P4L (K=3)
-56.80±1.83
-189.4 ±6.44
-210.6 ±4.27
P4L (K=4)
-74.23±16.5
-492.3±13.3
-500.0±0.0
P4L (K=5)
-67.60±22.3
-267.8±202
-295.1±180
P4L (K=Auto)
-63.20±4.3
-233.1±24.1
-263.1±28.0
Table 4: Values of learned policies from four RL methods on MountainCar with different settings.
Department of Statistics, Florida State University · Department of Statistics, University of Connecticut · Center for Data Science, Zhejiang University