A Model-Free Continuous-Time RL Algorithm from Discrete-Time Off-Policy Data with End-to-End Guarantees
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles. · Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Auburn University. · Department of Statistics and Data Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
Abstract
In this paper, we study continuous-time reinforcement learning, where the state follows an unknown stochastic differential equation but only a fixed off-policy batch of discrete-time transitions is available. Standard discrete-time Q-learning becomes problematic as the sampling interval shrinks, because differences between action values vanish. Continuous-time alternatives, such as Deep Advantage Updating and martingale q-learning, preserve the action signal but jointly learn a value function and an action-dependent critic. Building on the PhiBE-Q formulation (arXiv:2606.21925), we develop a model-free PhiBE policy iteration (PhiBE-PI) framework that uses a single state-action critic while preserving the continuous-time action-ranking scale. At each iteration, the framework learns the critic directly from sampled increments and uses it to improve the policy. The same batch is reused throughout, without explicitly estimating the drift or diffusion. We further develop an implementation under linear function approximation and establish a local end-to-end suboptimality guarantee for the learned policy. Our analysis quantifies how errors from time discretization, function approximation, and finite-sample policy evaluation propagate through policy iteration. It accounts for the dependence of successive policies on the reused data, so the guarantee does not require a fresh batch at each iteration. Moreover, we identify a bias-variance trade-off: smaller sampling intervals improve the approximation to the continuous-time problem but can increase statistical error at a fixed sample size. Thus, finer time discretization does not necessarily lead to better policy performance.
Figures & tables
| Where the error comes from | Size and role in the bound | How to reduce it |
|---|---|---|
| Replacing the dynamics. The one-step surrogate approximates the continuous-time problem. | at fixed and ; added directly to the control error. | Decrease , while increasing the batch size to control sampling error. |
| Using a finite feature space. The features cannot represent every policy’s Q-function exactly. | ; part of the evaluation error before propagating into the PI error . | richer independent bases |
| Estimating from a finite batch. The Galerkin equations are estimated from sampled transitions. | ; bounded by ; part of the evaluation error before propagating into the PI error . | Increase . A smaller requires more samples for the same evaluation accuracy. |
| Stopping policy iteration. Only greedy updates are performed. | ; added directly, up to the -independent . | Increase ; evaluation and model errors remain. |
| Using a local residual bound. The proof controls error on using residuals on . | , multiplied by the -independent . | A larger reduces this factor, but requires coverage on a larger region and control of the constants. |
Continuous-Time RL
Continuous-Time Reinforcement Learning studies how agents learn policies for systems that evolve continuously or through asynchronous jumps.
See all 33 papers