Certified Safety Curation: Distribution-Free Guarantees for Safe Offline Reinforcement Learning

In offline reinforcement learning (RL), we learn policies from fixed datasets without environment interaction. The major challenges are to provide guarantees on the (1) performance and (2) safety of the resulting policy. A technique called safe policy improvement (SPI) provides a performance guarantee: with high probability, the new policy outperforms a given baseline policy, which is assumed to be safe. Orthogonally, in the context of safe RL, a shield provides a safety guarantee by restricting the action space to those actions that are provably safe with respect to a given safety-relevant model. We integrate these paradigms by extending shielding to offline RL, relying solely on the available dataset and knowledge of safe and unsafe states. Then, we shield the policy improvement steps, guaranteeing, with high probability, a safe policy. Experimental results demonstrate that shielded SPI outperforms its unshielded counterpart, improving both average and worst-case performance, particularly in low-data regimes.

Safe reinforcement learning (RL) is commonly formalized as a Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP), in which an agent maximizes expected reward while keeping its expected cumulative cost below a specified safety bound. Existing safe RL benchmarks predominantly report whether an algorithm is safe on average, following this expectation-based guarantee. We argue that this convention is insufficient to reliably characterize an algorithm's true safety: it fails to capture how often and how severely the safety bound is violated, whether this holds consistently across tasks and safety bounds, and whether training-time behavior is representative of behavior of the final converged policy. Therefore, we introduce (i) evaluation metrics for safe RL that address each of these concerns and in addition allow for aggregation across tasks and safety bounds. We furthermore define (ii) a safety tier system to systematically categorize and compare algorithms in terms of safety and reliability at both training and for a final policy. Using this framework, we provide (iii) an empirical safety evaluation across multiple safety navigation tasks. Our results show that aggregate metrics, distributional reporting, and task- and safety bound-specific results each reveal information the other metrics cannot. We therefore recommend reporting all three jointly, rather than compressing this information into a single value, as is common practice. We provide SafeRLEval, an open-source evaluation suite to support the reliable characterization of safety in future safe RL research.

Offline safe reinforcement learning often requires policies to adapt at deployment time to safety budgets that vary across episodes or change within a single episode. While diffusion-based planners enable flexible trajectory generation, existing guidance schemes often treat reward improvement and constraint satisfaction as competing gradient objectives, which can lead to unreliable safety compliance under cost limits. We reinterpret adaptive safe trajectory generation as sampling from a constrained trajectory distribution, where the budget restricts the trajectory region, and reward shapes preferences within that region. This perspective motivates Safe Decoupled Guidance Diffusion (SDGD), which conditions classifier-free guidance on the cost limit to bias sampling toward trajectories satisfying the specified limit, while using reward-gradient guidance to refine trajectories for higher return. Because direct reward guidance can increase return while also steering samples toward trajectories with higher cumulative cost, we introduce Feasible Trajectory Relabeling (FTR) to reshape reward targets and discourage such directions. We further provide a first-order sampling-time analysis showing that FTR suppresses reward-induced cost drift under a prefix-restorative alignment condition. Extensive evaluations on the DSRL benchmark show that SDGD achieves the strongest safety compliance among baselines, satisfying the constraint on 94.7% of tasks (36/38), while obtaining the highest reward among safe methods on 21 tasks.