user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Bootstrapping the Expressivity with Model-based Planning

Paper content:
We compare the model-free reinforcement learning with the model-based approaches through the lens of the expressive power of neural networks for policies, $Q$-functions, and dynamics.
We show, theoretically and empirically, that even for one-dimensional continuous state space, there are many MDPs whose optimal $Q$-functions and policies are much more complex than the dynamics.
We hypothesize many real-world MDPs also have a similar property.
For these MDPs, model-based planning is a favorable algorithm, because the resulting policies can approximate the optimal policy significantly better than a neural network parameterization can, and model-free or model-based policy optimization rely on policy parameterization.
Motivated by the theory, we apply a simple multi-step model-based bootstrapping planner (BOOTS) to bootstrap a weak $Q$-function into a stronger policy.
Empirical results show that applying BOOTS on top of model-based or model-free policy optimization algorithms at the test time improves the performance on MuJoCo benchmark tasks.
Model-based deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms offer a lot of potentials in achieving significantly better sample efficiency than the model-free algorithms for continuous control tasks.
We can largely categorize the model-based deep RL algorithms into two types:
1. model-based policy optimization algorithms which learn policies or Q-functions, parameterized by neural networks, on the estimated dynamics, using off-the-shelf model-free algorithms or their variants (Luo et al., 2019; Janner et al., 2019; Kaiser et al., 2019; Kurutach et al., 2018; Feinberg et al., 2018; Buckman et al., 2018) , and
2. model-based planning algorithms, which plan with the estimated dynamics Nagabandi et al. (2018) ; Chua et al. (2018) ; Wang & Ba (2019) .
A deeper theoretical understanding of the pros and cons of model-based and the model-free algorithms in the continuous state space case will provide guiding principles for designing and applying new sample-efficient methods.
The prior work on the comparisons of model-based and model-free algorithms mostly focuses on their sample efficiency gap, in the case of tabular MDPs (Zanette & Brunskill, 2019; Jin et al., 2018) , linear quadratic regulator (Tu & Recht, 2018) , and contextual decision process with sparse reward (Sun et al., 2019) .
In this paper, we theoretically compare model-based RL and model-free RL in the continuous state space through the lens of approximability by neural networks, and then use the insight to design practical algorithms.
What is the representation power of neural networks for expressing the Qfunction, the policy, and the dynamics?
How do the model-based and model-free algorithms utilize the expressivity of neural networks?
Our main finding is that even for the case of one-dimensional continuous state space, there can be a massive gap between the approximability of Q-function and the policy and that of the dynamics:
The optimal Q-function and policy can be significantly more complex than the dynamics.
We construct environments where the dynamics are simply piecewise linear functions with constant pieces, but the optimal Q-functions and the optimal policy require an exponential (in the horizon) number of linear pieces, or exponentially wide neural networks, to approximate.
1 The approximability gap can also be observed empirically on (semi-) randomly generated piecewise linear dynamics with a decent chance.
(See Figure 1 for two examples.)
When the approximability gap occurs, any deep RL algorithms with policies parameterized by neural networks will suffer from a sub-optimal performance.
These algorithms include both model-free algorithms such as DQN (Mnih et al., 2015) and SAC (Haarnoja et al., 2018) , and model-based policy optimization algorithms such as SLBO (Luo et al., 2019) and MBPO (Janner et al., 2019) .
To validate the intuition, we empirically apply these algorithms to the constructed or the randomly generated MDPs.
Indeed, they fail to converge to the optimal rewards even with sufficient samples, which suggests that they suffer from the lack of expressivity.
However, in such cases, model-based planning algorithms should not suffer from the lack of expressivity, because they only use the learned, parameterized dynamics, which are easy to express.
The policy obtained from the planning is the maximizer of the total future reward on the learned dynamics, and can have an exponential (in the horizon) number of pieces even if the dynamics has only a constant number of pieces.
In fact, even a partial planner can help improve the expressivity of the policy.
If we plan for k steps and then resort to some Q-function for estimating the total reward of the remaining steps, we can obtain a policy with 2 k more pieces than what Q-function has.
We hypothesize that the real-world continuous control tasks also have a more complex optimal Qfunction and a policy than the dynamics.
The theoretical analysis of the synthetic dynamics suggests that a model-based few-steps planner on top of a parameterized Q-function will outperform the original Q-function because of the addtional expressivity introduced by the planning.
We empirically verify the intuition on MuJoCo benchmark tasks.
We show that applying a model-based planner on top of Q-functions learned from model-based or model-free policy optimization algorithms in the test time leads to significant gains over the original Q-function or policy.
In summary, our contributions are:
1. We construct continuous state space MDPs whose Q-functions and policies are proved to be more complex than the dynamics (Sections 4.1 and 4.2.)
2. We empirically show that with a decent chance, (semi-)randomly generated piecewise linear MDPs also have complex Q-functions (Section 4.3.)
3. We show theoretically and empirically that the model-free RL or model-based policy optimization algorithms suffer from the lack of expressivity for the constructed MDPs (Sections 4.3), whereas model-based planning solve the problem efficiently (Section 5.2.)
4. Inspired by the theory, we propose a simple model-based bootstrapping planner (BOOTS), which can be applied on top of any model-free or model-based Q-learning algorithms at the test time.
Empirical results show that BOOTS improves the performance on MuJoCo benchmark tasks, and outperforms previous state-of-the-art on MuJoCo humanoid environment.
Our study suggests that there exists a significant representation power gap of neural networks between for expressing Q-function, the policy, and the dynamics in both constructed examples and empirical benchmarking environments.
We show that our model-based bootstrapping planner BOOTS helps to overcome the approximation issue and improves the performance in synthetic settings and in the difficult MuJoCo environments.
We raise some interesting open questions.
• Can we theoretically generalize our results to high-dimensional state space, or continuous actions space?
Can we theoretically analyze the number of pieces of the optimal Q-function of a stochastic dynamics?
• In this paper, we measure the complexity by the size of the neural networks.
It's conceivable that for real-life problems, the complexity of a neural network can be better measured by its weights norm.
Could we build a more realistic theory with another measure of complexity?
• The BOOTS planner comes with a cost of longer test time.
How do we efficiently plan in high-dimensional dynamics with a long planning horizon?
• The dynamics can also be more complex (perhaps in another sense) than the Q-function in certain cases.
How do we efficiently identify the complexity of the optimal Q-function, policy, and the dynamics, and how do we deploy the best algorithms for problems with different characteristics?
(Luo et al., 2019) , the stochasticity in the dynamics can play a similar role as the model ensemble.
Our algorithm is a few times faster than MBPO in wall-clock time.
It performs similarlty to MBPO on Humanoid, but a bit worse than MBPO in other environments.
In MBSAC, we use SAC to optimize the policy π β and the Q-function Q ϕ .
We choose SAC due to its sample-efficiency, simplicity and off-policy nature.
We mix the real data from the environment and the virtual data which are always fresh and are generated by our learned dynamics modelf θ .

assistant: text: We compare deep model-based and model-free RL algorithms by studying the approximability of $Q$-functions, policies, and dynamics by neural networks.