Organizations: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania · University of Pennsylvania · Graduate Group in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
Policy learning has received substantial attention with the goal of learning policies from observational data for decision-making. A majority of work in this space has focused on developing algorithms for computing policies that minimize regret compared to the optimal policy. However, in many practical settings, there is insufficient data to obtain low regret. As a result, recent work has shifted attention to alternative objectives, most notably, studying whether it is possible to learn an improving policy that statistically significantly outperforms baseline policies. We argue that there is substantial merit in studying a broader range of policy learning problems. When there is insufficient data to learn an improving policy, there may still be useful questions that can be answered. To this end, we provide a mathematical framework for studying the relationships between policy learning problems. We formalize three problems within our framework: beyond the optimal policy problem and the improving policy problem, we also propose the policy existence problem, which aims to determine if an improving policy exists. Within our framework, we show that the policy existence problem reduces to the improving policy problem, which in turn reduces to the optimal policy problem; these reductions prove that each problem is at least as easy as the next one (in sample complexity). A key question remains: is this hardness strict? We provide partial answers. First, the gap between the optimal policy and improving policy problems is strict. For the improving policy and policy existence problems, we prove that a sublinear polynomial gap exists under natural conditions on improving policy learning algorithms. Thus, we may be able to answer questions about the existence of an improving policy even when we cannot find one. These results highlight the value in studying a broader range of policy learning problems.
We study optimal policy learning under combined budget and minimum coverage constraints. We show that the problem admits a knapsack-type structure and that the optimal policy can be characterized by an affine threshold rule involving both budget and coverage shadow prices. We establish that the linear programming relaxation of the combinatorial solution has an O(1) integrality gap, implying asymptotic equivalence with the optimal discrete allocation. Building on this result, we analyze two implementable approaches: a Greedy-Lagrangian (GLC) and a rank-and-cut (RC) algorithm. We show that the GLC closely approximates the optimal solution and achieves near-optimal performance in finite samples. By contrast, RC is approximately optimal whenever the coverage constraint is slack or costs are homogeneous, while misallocation arises only when cost heterogeneity interacts with a binding coverage constraint. Monte Carlo evidence supports these findings.
When a reinforcement learning agent cannot observe the full state, we usually blame its policies: it cannot see enough to represent a good one. We show that in a solvable case the bigger problem lies elsewhere. Even when a good policy is available and the agent's value function is expressive enough to describe it exactly, learning still ends up somewhere far worse. We study a partially observed linear-quadratic problem in which a standard actor-critic learner can be solved in closed form. At our default setting the best policy the agent can represent is already close to optimal, costing 10.4% more than the ideal controller that observes everything. Learning does not find it. The algorithm instead comes to rest at a policy that is 35% worse than the best one available to it, and we can say exactly where and why. The cause is a bias in what the critic learns rather than a limit on what the actor can express. Because the agent cannot attribute what it sees to the part of the state it cannot observe, the critic misreads that unexplained variation as sharp curvature in its own value estimates, and the actor follows that error away from the optimum. We derive closed-form expressions for the resulting policy, for its cost, and for the one design choice that removes the problem, which is how far the learner looks ahead before trusting its own value estimates. Deep reinforcement learning experiments follow these predictions closely. Notably, giving the agent memory of past observations does not help, while changing how far it looks ahead does.
In evidence-based policymaking, typically one experimental sample is observed, then a learned policy recommendation is implemented at scale. Policies learned from the experimental data can perform well in expected welfare, yet random sampling in the experiment can produce recommendations with poor welfare outcomes. In this paper, we ask: how should policy learning algorithms balance expected welfare against sampling risk? Our main contribution is to show that algorithmic stability plays a central role in characterizing and navigating the tradeoff. Intuitively, if a policy learning algorithm's recommendation remains stable when one experimental unit is replaced, then that algorithm has limited sampling risk. We propose a method for policy learning called policy-vote bagging, which learns treatment decisions on many subsamples then averages their votes into treatment probabilities. Relative to using one subsample, averaging across subsamples preserves expected welfare and improves expected utility for a risk-averse researcher. We derive sharp bounds linking estimation accuracy, subsample size, and welfare variation, including an exact guarantee under CARA utility.