REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references
Inverse Delayed Reinforcement Learning
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper claims that learning from augmented delayed states—delayed observations plus the actions taken during the delay—recovers expert intent better than learning from raw delayed observations, via an off-policy adversarial IRL…
desk verdict A useful empirical study of IRL under observation/action delay, but the advertised theoretical proof of augmented-state superiority is a symmetric bound that cannot deliver what the abstract claims. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the augmented delayed state $x_t = (s_{t-\Delta}, a_{t-\Delta}, \ldots, a_{t-1})$ together with the delayed MDP $M_\Delta$ that it renders Markovian; stacking the stale observation with the actions issued during the delay turns a temporally misaligned expert trajectory into a well-posed imitation problem. On top of this representation, the method runs an adversarial reward learner with discriminator $D_\theta(x,a) = \frac{\exp(R_\theta(x,a))}{\exp(R_\theta(x,a)) + \pi_\Delta(a|x)}$, whose log-ratio gives the reward, and an off-policy auxiliary-delay policy optimizer. The theoretical support comes from Lipschitz continuity assumptions on the reward and the transition dynamics: with those, belief drift over the delay is bounded by $\Delta L_T$, the reward misspecification by $\Delta L_R L_T$, and the value-function gap between the two representations by $\frac{1}{1-\gamma}[R_{\max} + \Delta L_R L_T]$.
What would settle it
On a small delayed MDP whose true expert reward is known, learn one policy on augmented states and one on delayed observations with the same optimizer; if a delay setting exists where the delayed-observation policy's return is closer to the expert's return than the augmented-state policy's, or where the Proposition 5 bound is tight in the direction favoring delayed observations, the superiority claim fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that inverse reinforcement learning under observation/action delay should be performed on the augmented delayed state $x_t = (s_{t-\Delta}, a_{t-\Delta}, \ldots, a_{t-1})$ rather than on the raw delayed observation $s_{t-\Delta}$. Restoring the Markov property through this augmentation, the authors build an off-policy adversarial IRL method (IDRL) in which a discriminator $D_\theta(x,a)$ distinguishes expert augmented state-action pairs from those of the learned policy, and the log-ratio of the discriminator supplies the reward. The same augmentation is used during policy optimization, helped by an auxiliary short-delay task. In MuJoCo benchmarks with delays of 5, 10, and 25 time steps and with 10 to 1000 expert trajectories, IDRL reports near-expert returns on Hopper, HalfCheetah, Walker2d, and Ant, while the AIRL, DAC, and behavior-cloning baselines largely fail to learn meaningful policies under delay. The paper's theoretical analysis bounds the difference between the value functions obtained from augmented versus delayed-observation reward shaping by $\frac{1}{1-\gamma}[R_{\max} + \Delta L_R L_T]$, and interprets this bound as justification for preferring augmented states.
Load-bearing premise
The argument that augmented states are better rests on reading a symmetric upper bound on the absolute value-function gap as evidence that the augmented-state policy is closer to the expert's intent; the bound itself does not say which policy has higher value.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Inverse RL becomes usable on delay-corrupted expert data, so teleoperated robots and networked controllers can skip explicit time-alignment of their demonstrations.
- With sufficient demonstrations and augmented-state reward shaping, near-expert policies are recovered at delays up to 25 steps, whereas delayed-observation baselines that use the same IRL machinery collapse.
- The augmentation makes off-policy adversarial training practical, reducing the number of environment interactions needed for IRL under delay.
- The theoretical bound implies the advantage of augmentation grows with delay and with the roughness of the reward and dynamics, since the gap scales as $\Delta L_R L_T$.
Reading between the lines
- The bound in Proposition 5 is symmetric in the two value functions, so it establishes only that the two representations are within a certain distance of each other; the conclusion that augmented states are closer to expert intent needs an additional directional argument that the paper does not give.
- A clean ablation would hold the policy optimizer fixed and vary only the state representation, separating the effect of augmentation from the contribution of the auxiliary delayed policy routine.
- The augmentation idea should extend to stochastic or time-varying delays by replacing the fixed action window with a belief over the true state, linking this work to belief-based delayed RL.
- From a data-collection standpoint, the method implies a simple rule for practice: record the action sequence along with delayed observations, because that is what makes the augmented feature space available.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies inverse reinforcement learning from expert trajectories corrupted by observation/action delay. It proposes IDRL, which (i) augments delayed observations with the intervening action sequence to form an augmented state, (ii) trains an off-policy adversarial discriminator/reward model, and (iii) optimizes the policy with an auxiliary-delay policy optimizer adapted from Wu et al. (2024a). Section 4 claims a theoretical result that recovering policies from augmented delayed states outperforms recovering from direct delayed states; Section 6 reports MuJoCo experiments across delays 5/10/25 and 10/100/1000 demonstrations. The empirical tables show large gains for IDRL over BC, AIRL, and DAC.
Significance. The problem is genuinely under-studied: most delayed RL work assumes delay-free expert data, while this paper targets delays inside the expert trajectories, which is relevant for teleoperation and cyber-physical systems. The proposed pipeline is coherent and the experiments are extensive, covering five environments, three delay settings, three dataset sizes, and multiple baselines. The paper also reuses existing validated components (VDPO expert data, auxiliary-delay policy optimization), which is sensible engineering. If the central claim were proven and the comparisons cleanly controlled, this would be a useful contribution. As it stands, however, the advertised theory does not establish the superiority of augmented states, and the experiments change optimizer and representation simultaneously, so the incremental scientific claim is not yet supported.
major comments (4)
- [Section 4, Prop. 5; Abstract] The abstract states that the theoretical analysis shows that recovering expert policies from augmented delayed observations "outperforms" direct delayed observations, but Proposition 5 only upper-bounds the absolute difference, ∥V^{π∆}(x_t) − V^{π}(x_t)∥ ≤ (1−γ)^{-1}[Rmax + ΔL_R L_T]. This bound is invariant under exchanging the two policies and holds for any pair of policies whose values lie in the bounded range; it contains no directional information. The inference "From Prop. 5 ... choose augmented state x instead of delayed observation state" is therefore a non sequitur. A superiority claim would require a directional inequality (e.g., V^{π∆} ≥ V^π) or a lower bound on the gap, neither of which is derived.
- [Appendix A, proof of Prop. 8] The proof does not align with the definitions in Eqs. (6)–(7). Equation (7) defines V^π using the policy π(·|s_{t−Δ}) and reward R(s_{t−Δ}, a_t), but the proof writes the middle term with a_t ∼ π(·|x_t) and compares E_{s_t∼b(·|x_t)}[R(s_t,a_t)] with an unindexed R(s_t,a_t); Lemma 4 bounds against R(s_{t−Δ},a_t). The first term V^{π∆}(x_t) − E_{a∼π(·|x_t)}[Q^{π∆}(x_t,a)] is an absolute policy-value gap that can be as large as 2Rmax/(1−γ), so the Rmax/(1−γ) coefficient also needs justification. As written, the proof does not establish the displayed bound.
- [Section 5, Eq. (9)] The discriminator loss in Eq. (9) is presented as an off-policy version of the GAIL objective, but the importance-sampling ratio is explicitly dropped. The text says the occupancy-match proof "should be similar" to Ho and Ermon (2016), but no such proof is given, and the off-policy expectation over a replay buffer does not match the on-policy occupancy measure without the ratio. Since the paper's theoretical motivation for the learned reward rests on this occupancy match, the omission should be either rigorously justified or explicitly labeled as a heuristic; the current statement overclaims.
- [Section 6, Tables 1–2] The experimental comparison does not isolate the effect of the state representation. IDRL differs from AIRL and DAC in both the state representation (augmented x_t vs delayed s_{t−Δ}) and the policy optimizer (Algorithm 2 vs PPO vs SAC); additionally, in Hopper, HalfCheetah, Walker2d, and Ant, AIRL is trained for 10M steps while DAC and IDRL are trained for 1M. Therefore the large performance differences in Tables 1 and 2 could be due to the optimizer, the step budget, or the overall algorithm rather than to augmentation. Controlled ablations with the same optimizer and budget—e.g., AIRL/DAC on augmented states and IDRL on delayed-only states—are needed to support the stated conclusion.
minor comments (5)
- [Abstract vs Section 4] The abstract's claim that the theory "shows" outperformance is stronger than Section 4's own wording "From Prop. 5, we provide a theoretical insight"; the two should be aligned, preferably by weakening the abstract.
- [Definition 1] Definition 1 writes dR(R(s1,a1) − R(s2,a2)); since dR is a metric, the intended expression is dR(R(s1,a1), R(s2,a2)).
- [Lemma 3] Lemma 3 states a "LR-Time Lipschitz Continuous Dynamic" but the relevant constant should be L_T; the same subscript confusion appears in the proof of Lemma 6.
- [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 contains apparent typos: in line 3, Y2 samples from πψ(·|x_{t+n}) but subtracts log πφ(â|x_{t+1}); in line 8, the policy πψ is updated with critics Q^τ that were defined for the auxiliary policy πτ. These should be corrected or explicitly explained.
- [Acknowledgments] The Acknowledgments section contains the placeholder "We thank a bunch of people."
Circularity Check
No circular derivation is exhibited; the abstract's superiority claim is an unsupported reading of a symmetric upper bound (a soundness gap, not circularity), and the paper's self-citations to VDPO and auxiliary delay policy optimization are not load-bearing for the theoretical claim.
full rationale
Prop. 5 bounds |V^piDelta - V^pi| by (1-gamma)^{-1}[Rmax + Delta L_R L_T]; this bound is symmetric in the two policies and gives no directional information, so Section 4's sentence 'From Prop. 5, we provide a theoretical insight to choose augmented state x instead of delayed observation state' and the abstract's 'outperforms' are not derived from the bound. That is a non sequitur, not a circular reduction: the bound is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The off-policy section explicitly concedes a missing proof: 'The proof sketch should be similar' to Ho and Ermon (2016), and 'omitting this term has been observed to improve the algorithm's performance in practice' after dropping the importance-sampling ratio; this voids the GAIL-style occupancy-match guarantee but is an omitted proof rather than circularity. The main self-citations - VDPO (Wu et al., 2024b) for all expert trajectories and the auxiliary delay policy optimization (Wu et al., 2024a) used as Algorithm 2 - are methodological dependencies and benchmark choices; they do not enter the derivation of Prop. 5 and do not force the empirical results by construction. Accordingly, no step meets the standard of 'Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction' or a fitted input called a prediction; the score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- delta
- auxiliary delay Delta_tau
- n-step return n
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption The reward function is L_R-Lipschitz continuous (Definition 1).
- domain assumption The dynamics are L_T-Time Lipschitz continuous (Definition 2).
- domain assumption Rewards are bounded by Rmax.
- domain assumption Augmentation restores the Markov property of the delayed MDP (Altman and Nain, 1992; Katsikopoulos and Engelbrecht, 2003a).
- ad hoc to paper The off-policy importance sampling term in the discriminator loss can be dropped without significant bias.
- standard math ReLU MLPs are Lipschitz continuous (Virmaux and Scaman, 2018).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Delayed Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGHMR7VY
@misc{pith2026241202931,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Inverse Delayed Reinforcement Learning},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGHMR7VY}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02931}
}
read the original abstract
Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) has demonstrated effectiveness in a variety of imitation tasks. In this paper, we introduce an IRL framework designed to extract rewarding features from expert trajectories affected by delayed disturbances. Instead of relying on direct observations, our approach employs an efficient off-policy adversarial training framework to derive expert features and recover optimal policies from augmented delayed observations. Empirical evaluations in the MuJoCo environment under diverse delay settings validate the effectiveness of our method. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical analysis showing that recovering expert policies from augmented delayed observations outperforms using direct delayed observations.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[8]
Learning a belief representation for delayed reinforcement learning
Pierre Liotet, Erick Venneri, and Marcello Restelli. Learning a belief representation for delayed reinforcement learning. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE,
work page 2021
-
[13]
Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control
Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pages 5026–5033. IEEE,
2012
-
[15]
Tree search-based policy optimization under stochastic execution delay
David Valensi, Esther Derman, Shie Mannor, and Gal Dalal. Tree search-based policy optimization under stochastic execution delay. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05440,
-
[17]
Safe over-and under-approximation of reachable sets for delay differential equations
Bai Xue, Peter Nazier Mosaad, Martin Fr ¨anzle, Mingshuai Chen, Yangjia Li, and Naijun Zhan. Safe over-and under-approximation of reachable sets for delay differential equations. In Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems: 15th International Conference, FORMATS 2017, Berlin, Germany, September 5–7, 2017, Proceedings 15, pages 281–299. Springer,
work page 2017
-
[18]
S. S. Zhan, Q. Wu, P. Wang, Y . Wang, R. Jiao, C. Huang, and Q. Zhu. Model-based reward shaping for adversarial inverse reinforcement learning in stochastic environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03847, 2024a. Sinong Zhan, Yixuan Wang, Qingyuan Wu, Ruochen Jiao, Chao Huang, and Qi Zhu. State-wise safe reinforcement learning with pixel observations. In 6t...
-
[1998]
Proximal policy optimization algorithms
John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,
-
[2000]
Learning agile robotic locomotion skills by imitating animals
Xue Bin Peng, Erwin Coumans, Tingnan Zhang, Tsang-Wei Lee, Jie Tan, and Sergey Levine. Learning agile robotic locomotion skills by imitating animals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00784,
arXiv 2004
-
[2009]
Joint differentiable optimization and verification for certified reinforcement learning
Yixuan Wang, Simon Zhan, Zhilu Wang, Chao Huang, Zhaoran Wang, Zhuoran Yang, and Qi Zhu. Joint differentiable optimization and verification for certified reinforcement learning. In Proceed- ings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023), pages 132–141, 2023a. Yixuan Wang, Simon Sinong Zhan, Ruochen Ji...
arXiv 2023
Show all 19 references
-
[2010]
E st∼b(·|xt) [R(st, at)] + γV π∆(xt+1) # + E xt+1∼T∆(·|xt,at) at∼π(·|xt)
17 ZHAN ∗1 WU∗2 RUAN 1 YANG 1 WANG 1 WANG 1 JIAO 1 HUANG 2 ZHU 1 Appendix A. Proof Lemma 6 (Time Lipschitz Continuous Belief) Given a LR-Time Lipschitz Continuous Dynamic, the belief b is LR-Time Lipschitz Continuous, ∀xt ∈ X, satisfying W1(b(·|xt)||δst−∆) ≤ ∆LT . Proof We den...
2000
-
[2011]
End-to- end driving via conditional imitation learning
Felipe Codevilla, Matthias M¨uller, Antonio L´opez, Vladlen Koltun, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. End-to- end driving via conditional imitation learning. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 4693–4700. IEEE,
2018
-
[2012]
Generative adversarial imitation from observation
Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. Generative adversarial imitation from observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06158,
-
[2013]
Discriminator-actor-critic: Addressing sample inefficiency and reward bias in adversarial imitation learning
Ilya Kostrikov, Kumar Krishna Agrawal, Debidatta Dwibedi, Sergey Levine, and Jonathan Tompson. Discriminator-actor-critic: Addressing sample inefficiency and reward bias in adversarial imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02925,
-
[2016]
Learning robust rewards with adversarial inverse reinforce- ment learning
12 INVERSE DELAYED RL Justin Fu, Katie Luo, and Sergey Levine. Learning robust rewards with adversarial inverse reinforce- ment learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11248,
-
[2018]
Hirl: Hierarchical inverse reinforcement learning for long-horizon tasks with delayed rewards
Sanjay Krishnan, Animesh Garg, Richard Liaw, Lauren Miller, Florian T Pokorny, and Ken Goldberg. Hirl: Hierarchical inverse reinforcement learning for long-horizon tasks with delayed rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06508,
-
[2020]
Scalable bayesian inverse reinforcement learning
Alex J Chan and Mihaela van der Schaar. Scalable bayesian inverse reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06483,
-
[2021]
Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning
Christopher Berner, Greg Brockman, Brooke Chan, Vicki Cheung, Przemyslaw Dkebiak, Christy Dennison, David Farhi, Quirin Fischer, Shariq Hashme, Chris Hesse, et al. Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680,
1912 arXiv
-
[2022]
Control of a quadrotor with reinforcement learning
Jemin Hwangbo, Inkyu Sa, Roland Siegwart, and Marco Hutter. Control of a quadrotor with reinforcement learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(4):2096–2103,
-
[2023]
Setting up a reinforcement learning task with a real-world robot
A Rupam Mahmood, Dmytro Korenkevych, Brent J Komer, and James Bergstra. Setting up a reinforcement learning task with a real-world robot. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4635–4640. IEEE,
2018
-
[2024]
Relectrode: A reconfigurable electrode for multi-purpose sensing based on microfluidics
Wei Sun, Yanjun Chen, Simon Zhan, Teng Han, Feng Tian, Hongan Wang, and Xing-Dong Yang. Relectrode: A reconfigurable electrode for multi-purpose sensing based on microfluidics. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–12,
2021
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.