Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour

Provable Benefits of Regularization: Fast Rates for Adversarial Imitation Learning

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLby Hanbin Zhou ()1 min read1 · 1 read
AI summary · grok-4.7Summaries by Vani AI

Theory paper proves fast finite-sample rates for dually regularized adversarial imitation learning.

The paper studies adversarial imitation learning, where a policy imitates experts by competing against a reward that distinguishes expert and learner behavior. Its model-free Dually Regularized AIL algorithm combines KL policy regularization with a quadratic reward penalty weighted by expert and learner occupancies. With K online episodes and N expert trajectories, it proves a tilde-O(1/K + 1/N) bound on the regularized imitation gap. The authors say it is the first method to achieve simultaneous tilde-O(1/epsilon) sample complexity in both expert demonstrations and online interactions for this objective, including stochastic experts.

Key facts
  • Dually Regularized AIL combines KL policy regularization with a quadratic reward penalty.
  • Proves a tilde-O(1/K + 1/N) bound on the regularized imitation gap.
  • Claims simultaneous tilde-O(1/epsilon) rates for demonstrations and online interaction.
  • Analysis covers finite-horizon MDPs with general function approximation.
Explain this AI news with Vani AIWhat was announced, what is new and why it matters, in a new chat

From the original article

1 min read at arxiv.org

We study adversarial imitation learning (AIL), in which an agent learns to imitate expert demonstrations by optimizing a policy against an adversarial reward that distinguishes expert and learner behavior. Historically, reward regularization and entropy-based policy regularization are key components of empirically successful methods such as GAIL and LS-IQ, yet their finite-sample benefits remain underexplored.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

By Hanbin Zhou · arxiv.org

Read the full article at arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.