Offline-to-Online Reinforcement Learning (O2O RL) has emerged as a practical paradigm that pre-trains the policy using static offline datasets and subsequently adapts the policy through online interactions. Existing O2O methods primarily address the transition through value calibration, while generally treating the offline-trained policy as a given initialization. We instead study O2O adaptation from the perspective of network plasticity, asking whether the offline-trained policy remains sufficiently adaptable for online learning. Controlled experiments show that prolonged optimization on static offline data progressively reduces network plasticity even after offline performance has largely saturated, and that lower plasticity is associated with weaker subsequent online improvement. Motivated by these observations, we propose REstoring plasticity via Fresh Initialization and policy Transfer (REFIT), a lightweight model-level method for the O2O transition. Before online fine-tuning, REFIT distills the offline policy into a freshly initialized student while temporarily freezing a random subset of student units, transferring the learned offline behavior to a more plastic policy initialization. Extensive experiments on D4RL and OGBench demonstrate that REFIT consistently achieves higher aggregate performance than existing O2O plug-in methods across both Cal-QL and IQL backbones, while plasticity diagnostics and ablations provide further evidence of restored network plasticity.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Network plasticity and online adaptation in a controlled O2O setting. The dashed line marks the transition from offline pre-training to online fine-tuning. (a) The bimodal reward landscape, offline data distribution, and policy trajectories. (b) Actor FAU throughout offline training and subsequent online fine-tuning. (c) Learning curve throughout training.
Figure 2: Offline over-optimization significantly degrades model plasticity, and the plasticity metric FAU is shown to be positively correlated with online performance improvements. (a) Overall performance and FAU curves across varying offline pre-training budgets. (b) Correlation between online initial policy FAU and performance improvement.
Figure 3: Schematic overview of REFIT.
Environment
IQL ( Kostrikov et al., 2021 )
Cal-QL ( Nakamoto et al., 2023 )
Baseline
OPT
Ours (REFIT)
Baseline
PARS
Ours (REFIT)
antmaze-m-p
76.2 ± 1.5
88.0 ± 3.0
86.6 ± 4.8
92.2 ± 2.1
92.4 ± 3.0
95.4 ± 1.7
antmaze-m-d
71.6 ± 2.7
88.8 ± 1.2
89.2 ± 2.7
93.2 ± 0.8
89.6 ± 2.9
96.2 ± 0.8
antmaze-l-p
46.0 ± 2.8
61.6 ± 5.1
63.8 ± 8.3
70.6 ± 7.5
78.6 ± 3.6
78.2 ± 5.0
antmaze-l-d
50.6 ± 5.7
63.6 ± 3.6
65.2 ± 4.0
53.6 ± 17.4
79.2 ± 12.4
80.2 ± 5.0
AntMaze total
244.4
302.0
304.8
309.6
339.8
350.0
Table 1: Performance of our REFIT and baselines on AntMaze, MuJoCo, and OGBench, averaged over five random seeds. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results within each backbone, respectively.
Figure 4: O2O training curves on D4RL and OGBench. The dashed line marks the transition from offline pre-training to online fine-tuning, at which REFIT is applied.
Figure 5: Evolution of actor FAU across the offline-to-online transition.
Method
hc-m
hc-r
wal-m-r
hop-m-r
ant-m-p
ant-m-d
Score
Baseline
48.1 ± 0.1
13.8 ± 3.9
74.8 ± 2.8
77.5 ± 18.1
76.2 ± 1.5
71.6 ± 2.7
362.0 (-23.3%)
Reset
47.3 ± 0.4
38.6 ± 2.4
84.0 ± 10.6
86.5 ± 29.9
71.2 ± 6.8
74.0 ± 5.5
401.6 (-14.9%)
Reset + Distillation
49.8 ± 0.2
45.7 ± 1.9
89.3 ± 11.2
97.9 ± 6.2
83.5 ± 1.8
79.2 ± 23.6
445.4 (-5.6%)
REFIT
50.0 ± 0.3
46.3 ± 1.4
96.9 ± 2.2
102.7 ± 0.4
86.6 ± 4.8
89.2 ± 2.7
471.7
Table 2: Ablation of REFIT design components. All results are averaged over 5 random seeds.
Env
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
halfcheetah-m
49.8 ± 0.2
50.0 ± 0.2
50.0 ± 0.3
50.1 ± 0.4
47.3 ± 0.4
halfcheetah-r
45.7 ± 1.9
46.2 ± 1.3
46.3 ± 1.4
46.5 ± 1.8
38.6 ± 2.4
antmaze-m-p
83.5 ± 1.8
86.0 ± 3.7
86.6 ± 4.8
85.8 ± 4.1
71.2 ± 6.8
antmaze-m-d
79.2 ± 23.6
86.4 ± 3.0
89.2 ± 2.7
84.4 ± 1.5
74.0 ± 5.5
Total
258.2
268.6
272.1
266.8
231.1
Table 3: Performance of REFIT under various freeze ratio settings. The two lowest scores in each row are marked in red .
Figure 6: Learning curves of REFIT with different distillation targets.
Figure 7: Performance of REFIT under different distillation budget settings.
Figure 8: Robustness of REFIT across different offline training budgets. (a) Normalized online performance of REFIT and the corresponding IQL baseline after online fine-tuning under different offline training budgets. (b) Online learning curves of REFIT and the baseline across different offline training budgets. (c) FAU during online fine-tuning.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Suite
Token
Meaning
Example
Environment
hc
halfcheetah
hc-m
hop
hopper
hop-m-r
wal
walker2d
wal-r
ant
antmaze
ant-l-d
MuJoCo Postfix
r
random
hc-r
m
medium
hop-m
Appendix
Table 4: Environment naming convention. Tokens are composed from left to right, as illustrated in the examples.
Figure 9: Wall-clock time of IQL+REFIT and the IQL baseline, averaged over five random seeds.
Method
hc-m
hc-r
wal-m-r
hop-m-r
ant-m-p
ant-m-d
Total
IQL
48.1 ± 0.1
13.8 ± 3.9
74.8 ± 2.8
77.5 ± 18.1
76.2 ± 1.5
71.6 ± 2.7
362.0
IQL+CPR
51.7 ± 0.5
26.0 ± 4.0
86.0 ± 11.7
101.8 ± 3.9
66.0 ± 3.3
71.0 ± 6.8
402.5
IQL+REFIT
50.0 ± 0.3
46.3 ± 1.4
96.9 ± 2.2
102.7 ± 0.4
86.6 ± 4.8
89.2 ± 2.7
471.7
Cal-QL
65.3 ± 3.0
33.4 ± 3.8
86.7 ± 8.7
68.9 ± 7.8
92.2 ± 2.1
93.2 ± 0.8
439.7
Cal-QL+CPR
43.3 ± 0.6
2.2 ± 0.1
17.6 ± 2.8
30.3 ± 7.9
27.0 ± 10.3
26.0 ± 13.9
146.3
Cal-QL+REFIT
51.1 ± 0.9
39.2 ± 3.5
97.9 ± 5.8
87.6 ± 7.5
95.4 ± 1.7
96.2 ± 0.8
467.4
Appendix
Table 5: Normalized scores on six representative tasks.
Figure 10: Performance comparison between IQL, IQL From Scratch and IQL+REFIT
Figure 11: Impact of network reset during distillation.
Environment
KLfwd
KLrev
MSE
antmaze-m-d
86.9 ± 6.7
87.0 ± 5.2
89.2 ± 2.7
antmaze-m-p
87.8 ± 2.7
84.8 ± 5.2
86.6 ± 4.8
halfcheetah-m
49.9 ± 0.2
50.0 ± 0.6
50.0 ± 0.3
halfcheetah-r
46.3 ± 1.5
47.5 ± 1.7
46.3 ± 1.4
Total Score
270.9 ± 2.9
269.2 ± 2.9
272.1 ± 2.8
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation of distillation loss. Results report mean ± standard deviation.
Method
antmaze-m-d
antmaze-m-p
halfcheetah-m
halfcheetah-r
Total Score
Default
89.2 ± 2.7
86.6 ± 4.8
50.0 ± 0.3
46.3 ± 1.4
272.1 ± 2.8
Copy Std
86.4 ± 4.5
84.3 ± 4.0
50.1 ± 0.3
46.9 ± 2.9
267.7 ± 2.3
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation of standard-deviation transfer. “Default” denotes the standard REFIT configuration where the log-standard-deviation parameters are reset along with the rest of the student network; “Copy Std” denotes the variant that inherits the standard deviation from the offline teacher. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation across random seeds.
Figure 12: Online performance with and without unfreezing the parameter subset after distillation.
Figure 13: Weight Norm of REFIT and baseline throughout the training process.
Figure 14: SRank of REFIT and baseline throughout the training process.
In offline-to-online reinforcement learning (O2O-RL), policies are first safely trained offline using previously collected datasets and then further fine-tuned for tasks via limited online interactions. In a typical O2O-RL pipeline, candidate policies trained with offline RL are evaluated via either off-policy evaluation (OPE) or online evaluation (OE). The policy with the highest estimated value is then deployed and continually fine-tuned. However, this setup has two main issues. First, OPE can be unreliable, making it risky to deploy a policy based solely on those estimates, whereas OE may identify a viable policy with substantial online interaction, which could have been used for fine-tuning. Second--and more importantly--it is also often not possible to determine a priori whether a pretrained policy will improve with post-deployment fine-tuning, especially in non-stationary environments. As a result, procedures committing to a single deployed policy are impractical in many real-world settings. Moreover, a naive remedy that exhaustively fine-tunes all candidates would violate interaction budget constraints and is likewise infeasible. In this paper, we propose a novel adaptive approach for policy selection and fine-tuning under online interaction budgets in O2O-RL. Following the standard pipeline, we first train a set of candidate policies with different offline RL algorithms and hyperparameters; we then perform OPE to obtain initial performance estimates. We next adaptively select and fine-tune the policies based on their predicted performance via an upper-confidence-bound approach thereby making efficient use of online interactions. We demonstrate that our approach improves upon O2O-RL baselines with various benchmarks.
Background: Offline reinforcement learning (RL) enables effective policies to be trained from large, previously collected datasets and subsequently improved through limited online interaction. This offline-to-online RL (O2O-RL) paradigm is particularly promising in nonstationary domains where interaction is costly or potentially hazardous. Standard O2O-RL pipelines train multiple candidate policies offline, evaluate them using off-policy or online evaluation, and then deploy and fine-tune the policy with the highest estimated value. However, as in offline pretraining, fine-tuning performance is highly sensitive to the choice of algorithm and hyperparameters, making it risky to commit to a single policy. Objectives: We study active policy selection for fine-tuning under a limited interaction budget in O2O-RL settings. To our knowledge, this is the first work to address this problem. Methods: We formulate the problem by identifying a fundamental trade-off between allocating online interactions to policy evaluation, which helps identify high-performing policies, and allocating them to fine-tuning, which improves policy performance. We then propose an approach that balances this trade-off by actively selecting policies for fine-tuning based on upper-confidence bounds on their future performance. These bounds are derived from locally linear performance forecasts fitted to observations obtained through online evaluation. Results: Across a diverse range of experiments, the proposed approach consistently outperforms existing O2O-RL baselines. Conclusions: Actively selecting and fine-tuning policies uses limited online interaction budgets more effectively than either committing to a single policy or dividing the budget equally among all policies. Our framework also advances offline RL toward practical deployment in real-world systems where online interaction is costly or risky.
Offline-to-online reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a practical paradigm that leverages offline datasets for pretraining and online interactions for fine-tuning. However, its empirical behavior is highly inconsistent: design choices of online fine-tuning that work well in one setting can fail completely in another. Guided by the stability--plasticity principle, we propose a framework that can explain this inconsistency: We argue that efficient fine-tuning must preserve the utility of the stronger offline prior, whether that is the pretrained policy or the offline dataset, while maintaining sufficient plasticity. This perspective identifies three regimes of online fine-tuning, each requiring distinct stability properties. We validate this framework through a large-scale empirical study, finding that the results strongly align with its predictions in 45 out of 63 cases, with only 3 opposite mismatches. This work provides a framework for guiding design choices in offline-to-online RL based on the relative performance of the offline dataset and the pretrained policy.
Lu Li, Tianwei Ni, Yihao Sun +1
Mila – Québec AI Institute · Université de Montréal · CIFAR AI Chair