Papers › Rethinking Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Policy Imitation, Transferable...

Rethinking Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Policy Imitation, Transferable Reward Recovery and Algebraic Equilibrium Proof

21 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.14593archive 2025-07-28

Yangchun Zhang, Qiang Liu, Weiming Li, Yirui Zhou

Adversarial inverse reinforcement learning (AIRL) stands as a cornerstone approach in imitation learning, yet it faces criticisms from prior studies. In this paper, we rethink AIRL and respond to these criticisms. Criticism 1 lies in Inadequate Policy Imitation. We show that substituting the built-in algorithm with soft actor-critic (SAC) during policy updating (requires multi-iterations) significantly enhances the efficiency of policy imitation. Criticism 2 lies in Limited Performance in Transferable Reward Recovery Despite SAC Integration. While we find that SAC indeed exhibits a significant improvement in policy imitation, it introduces drawbacks to transferable reward recovery. We prove that the SAC algorithm itself is not feasible to disentangle the reward function comprehensively during the AIRL training process, and propose a hybrid framework, PPO-AIRL + SAC, for a satisfactory transfer effect. Criticism 3 lies in Unsatisfactory Proof from the Perspective of Potential Equilibrium. We reanalyze it from an algebraic theory perspective.

PaperPDFCode

Code

garyzyr001/rethinking-airl officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

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

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Imitation Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

1x1 ConvolutionAverage PoolingConvolutionDilated ConvolutionGlobal Average PoolingSAC

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