Papers › Offline Retraining for Online RL: Decoupled Policy Learning to Mitigate Exploration Bias
Offline Retraining for Online RL: Decoupled Policy Learning to Mitigate Exploration Bias
Max Sobol Mark, Archit Sharma, Fahim Tajwar, Rafael Rafailov, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn
It is desirable for policies to optimistically explore new states and behaviors during online reinforcement learning (RL) or fine-tuning, especially when prior offline data does not provide enough state coverage. However, exploration bonuses can bias the learned policy, and our experiments find that naive, yet standard use of such bonuses can fail to recover a performant policy. Concurrently, pessimistic training in offline RL has enabled recovery of performant policies from static datasets. Can we leverage offline RL to recover better policies from online interaction? We make a simple observation that a policy can be trained from scratch on all interaction data with pessimistic objectives, thereby decoupling the policies used for data collection and for evaluation. Specifically, we propose offline retraining, a policy extraction step at the end of online fine-tuning in our Offline-to-Online-to-Offline (OOO) framework for reinforcement learning (RL). An optimistic (exploration) policy is used to interact with the environment, and a separate pessimistic (exploitation) policy is trained on all the observed data for evaluation. Such decoupling can reduce any bias from online interaction (intrinsic rewards, primacy bias) in the evaluation policy, and can allow more exploratory behaviors during online interaction which in turn can generate better data for exploitation. OOO is complementary to several offline-to-online RL and online RL methods, and improves their average performance by 14% to 26% in our fine-tuning experiments, achieves state-of-the-art performance on several environments in the D4RL benchmarks, and improves online RL performance by 165% on two OpenAI gym environments. Further, OOO can enable fine-tuning from incomplete offline datasets where prior methods can fail to recover a performant policy. Implementation: https://github.com/MaxSobolMark/OOO
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2310.08558")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 9 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 5 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 9 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
9 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 9 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from MaxSobolMark/OOO. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
42bdf6d9cb0aaad5 · report
7a2c5b4e604fd307 · report
d2f199c948f2a9ed · report
1d46473b7c1c2186 · report
cc35af8b18b7dc58 · report
d78e83e4520027b1 · report
bc616c63f1ef3dc2 · report
1a78f3efb730aee9 · report
f23c0c9faf00d830 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections