PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Pre-training with Synthetic Data Helps Offline Reinforcement Learning

Zecheng Wang, Che Wang, Zixuan Dong, Keith W. Ross

reinforcement learningDeep Reinforcement LearningOffline Reinforcement LearningPretraining
67.90100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
57.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
81.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We show pre-training with synthetic Markov Chain and MDP data can significantly improve offline DRL performance.

Abstract

Recently, it has been shown that for offline deep reinforcement learning (DRL), pre-training Decision Transformer with a large language corpus can improve downstream performance (Reid et al., 2022). A natural question to ask is whether this performance gain can only be achieved with language pre-training, or can be achieved with simpler pre-training schemes which do not involve language. In this paper, we first show that language is not essential for improved performance, and indeed pre-training with synthetic IID data for a small number of updates can match the performance gains from pre-training with a large language corpus; moreover, pre-training with data generated by a one-step Markov chain can further improve the performance. Inspired by these experimental results, we then consider pre-training Conservative Q-Learning (CQL), a popular offline DRL algorithm, which is Q-learning-based and typically employs a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) backbone. Surprisingly, pre-training with simple synthetic data for a small number of updates can also improve CQL, providing consistent performance improvement on D4RL Gym locomotion datasets. The results of this paper not only illustrate the importance of pre-training for offline DRL but also show that the pre-training data can be synthetic and generated with remarkably simple mechanisms.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)