Privacy-Preserving Prompted Policy Search for Robotic Control
Authors: Ali Irshayyid, Feng Lin, Chong Li, Jun Chen
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309 USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA · OORT and the Department of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University, NYC, 10027, USA
Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated promising capabilities as in-context policy optimizers for Reinforcement Learning (RL), enabling policy search driven by both numerical reward signals and natural language reasoning. However, deploying such methods in practice requires transmitting raw policy parameters and rewards history to cloud-based LLM APIs, exposing proprietary control strategies to third-party service providers. To address this issue, this paper introduces Privacy-Preserving Prompted Policy Search (PP-ProPS), a framework that enables LLM-guided policy optimization while keeping policy and environmental parameters confidential. PP-ProPS encodes policy parameters and reward values using secret client-side transformations before they are included in each API request, ensuring that the LLM provider observes only encoded policy parameters and scaled reward information. Furthermore, unlike Vanilla ProPS, the proposed framework does not require the true optimal episodic return to be known or disclosed to the LLM. Beyond protecting the optimization data, PP-ProPS improves the search process in two ways. First, it provides the LLM with individual reward components instead of only a single total return, offering more informative feedback about each candidate policy. Second, it uses a bounded history that prevents the prompt from growing indefinitely, improving search with high-dimensional policies and supporting the use of open-weight LLMs. The proposed PP-ProPS is evaluated on both continuous and discrete control problems spanning Multi-Joint dynamics with Contact (MuJoCo) locomotion, classic control, highway driving, and robotic arm manipulation. Compared to Vanilla ProPS, the proposed PP-ProPS outperforms ProPS in seven of the ten evaluated tasks, and surpasses conventional RL methods including PPO, SAC, and TRPO, in five of the six tasks.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the proposed PP-ProPS framework. The LLM searches in the encoded parameter space θ , while decoding, policy execution, reward scaling, and storage of the secret variables A and c are performed on the trusted client.
Fig. 2: Summary of the PP-ProPS prompt structure.
Fig. 3: Environments used to evaluate the proposed PP-ProPS framework.
Environment
Action type
na
ns
Detailed feedback
D
Ant-v5 (Ultra)
Continuous
8
10
Forward-progress reward, healthy reward, control-cost penalty, and contact-force penalty
88
Ant-v5 (Joints)
Continuous
8
16
Same as Ant-v5 (Ultra)
136
Ant-v5 (Torso)
Continuous
8
27
Same as Ant-v5 (Ultra)
224
Humanoid-v5 (Ultra)
Continuous
17
11
Forward-progress reward, healthy reward, control-cost penalty, and contact-force penalty
204
Humanoid-v5 (Joints)
Continuous
17
26
Same as Humanoid-v5 (Ultra)
459
Humanoid-v5 (Torso)
Continuous
17
45
Same as Humanoid-v5 (Ultra)
782
TABLE I: Evaluated environments, policy dimensions, and detailed feedback provided to the LLM
Fig. 4: Optimization performance of the evaluated ProPS configurations across two environments. Curves represent the mean episodic rewards and shaded regions indicate the standard deviation over five independent runs. Iterations preceding i=0 correspond to the 10-policy random warm-up phase.
Environment
Vanilla ProPS
R2PO
PE-ProPS
DF-ProPS
PP-ProPS
Ant-Ultra
942.75 (59.11)
Context overflow
998.64 (4.75)
998.9 (37.5)
994.55 (10.72)
Ant-Joints
966.58 (48.61)
Context overflow
982.62 (26.45)
996.15 (2.79)
989.68 (17.11)
Ant-Torso
929.19 (61.73)
Context overflow
982.41 (28.62)
993.76 (0.27)
997.08 (7.69)
Humanoid-Ultra
448.2 (51.65)
443.7 (80.5)
382.51 (73.79)
475.91 (72.61)
375.52 (96.64)
Humanoid-Joints
394.38 (90.88)
293.2 (77.1)
364.5 (94.03)
387 (69.3)
361.59 (97.2)
Humanoid-Torso
307.38 (63.7)
260.92 (20.74) †
251 (54.93)
326.43 (87.67)
290.68 (43.57)
TABLE II: Comparison of Episodic Rewards for Vanilla ProPS, R2PO, PE-ProPS, DF-ProPS, and PP-ProPS across all evaluated environments
Fig. 5: LLM response time for Ant-Ultra ( D=88 ) versus retained history size and the corresponding prompt size. Highlighted points denote bounded ( K=10 ) and unbounded history representations.
D
Bounded history ( K=10 )
Unbounded history
Diff (%)
88
942.75 (59.11)
950.75 (32.1)
−0.84
136
966.58 (48.61)
966.9 (15.7)
−0.03
224
929.19 (61.73)
932.7 (53.7)
−0.38
TABLE III: Comparison of the bounded and unbounded history representations across the Ant policy dimensions
Approach
Ant
Humanoid
Acrobot
CartPole
Highway
FetchReachDense
PPO
1000.16 (15.06)
192.94 (16.38)
-303.95 (170.33)
127.16 (179.77)
107.01 (26.51)
-7.65 (0.46)
A2C
233.61 (126.42)
118.82 (75.77)
-209.57 (158.84)
161.69 (177.61)
73.68(33.65)
-12.80 (8.19)
SAC
-52.42 (46.51)
78.24 (3.10)
–
–
–
-8.55 (0.99)
TD3
938.04 (240.49)
81.86 (34.78)
–
–
–
-8.06 (1.79)
DDPG
-6.55 (72.99)
89.59 (40.25)
–
–
–
-7.39 (2.45)
TRPO
965.23 (10.99)
193.21 (16.80)
-284.65 (171.60)
127.04 (187.54)
109.09 (30.69)
-8.76 (0.93)
TABLE IV: Performance Comparison of the Proposed PP-ProPS and Standard RL Baselines
Chinese Information Processing Laboratory, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences +2