Learning to Undo: Rollback-Augmented Reinforcement Learning with Reversibility Signals

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.14503
• Title: Learning to Undo: Rollback-Augmented Reinforcement Learning with Reversibility Signals
• Authors: Andrejs Sorstkins¹, Omer Tariq², Muhammad Bilal¹
• Category: cs.LG
• Publication Date: October 17, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14503

Abstract

This paper proposes a reversibility-aware learning framework designed to enhance the robustness and efficiency of value-based reinforcement learning agents, addressing the problems of value overestimation and instability in partially irreversible environments. The framework comprises two complementary core mechanisms: an experience-driven transition reversibility metric Φ(s,a) and a selective state rollback operation. In the CliffWalking-v0 environment, the framework reduces catastrophic falls by over 99.8% and improves average episode returns by 55%. In the Taxi-v3 environment, illegal actions are suppressed by ≥99.9%, cumulative rewards are improved by 65.7%, while simultaneously reducing reward variance significantly in both environments.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

1. Value Overestimation Problem: The prevalent Q-function overestimation in deep reinforcement learning causes agents to prefer statistically spurious or low-probability trajectories, leading to oscillatory policy updates and prolonged convergence times.
2. Safety in Irreversible Environments: In safety-critical applications (e.g., autonomous driving, robotic surgery, medical treatment planning), irreversible errors can lead to catastrophic consequences.
3. Limitations of Existing Methods: Traditional solutions to Q-value overestimation (e.g., Double Q-Learning, Conservative Q-Learning) typically come at the cost of increased computational complexity and sample complexity.

Research Motivation

Reversibility in human cognitive architecture forms the foundation for prudent decision-making and adaptive learning. Humans habitually evaluate both the immediate reward of a given action and the degree to which that action can be reversed or offset by subsequent steps. This paper embeds the ability to "undo" suboptimal decisions into the reinforcement learning framework, providing solutions for a broad range of safety-critical applications.

Core Contributions

1. Scalable Model-Free Reversibility Estimator: Proposes an online, per-state-action-pair reversibility estimator Φ(s,a) that avoids classifier training.
2. Explicit Rollback Operation: Integrates explicit rollback operations into tabular Q-learning and SARSA updates.
3. Principled Coupling Mechanism: Principally combines Φ-shaping and selective rollback to limit downside risk without suppressing exploration.
4. Comprehensive Evaluation: Through extensive evaluation, sensitivity analysis, and ablation studies, identifies components critical to safety and performance.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

In a Markov Decision Process (S, A, P, R, γ), an agent selects action a ∈ A in state s ∈ S, receives reward r, and transitions to s' ∼ P(·|s,a). The objective is to learn the optimal action-value function Q*(s,a) while ensuring safety in partially irreversible environments.

Model Architecture

1. Experience-Driven Reversibility Estimator

Maintains reversibility estimates through a FIFO structure:

• For each observed transition (s_t, a_t) → s_{t+1}, pushes record (s_0, a_0, d) into FIFO list L
• d = t + K is the deadline by which the agent must return to s_0
• Updates the reversibility table using exponential moving average (EMA):

Φ[s0,a0] ← (1-αφ)Φ[s0,a0] + αφ·y

where y ∈ {0,1} indicates whether the agent returns to the original state within K steps.

2. TD Learning and Penalty Mechanism

Forms penalized rewards:

r' = r - λ(1 - Φ[st,at])

Modified TD error:

• Q-learning: δ = r' + γmax_a' Q(s_{t+1},a') - Q(s_t,a_t)
• SARSA: δ = r' + γQ(s_{t+1},a_{t+1}) - Q(s_t,a_t)

3. Rollback Operation

Executes rollback when threshold conditions are triggered:

snext = {
  st,     if threshold violated
  st+1,   otherwise
}

Threshold condition defined as: target value ≤ T · Q(s_t, a_t)

Technical Innovations

1. Lightweight Reversibility Estimation: Replaces classifier-based precedence estimation with FIFO-based experience estimation, avoiding policy-specific overfitting.
2. Localized Penalties: Uses per-state-action-pair Φ to produce localized penalties rather than global thresholds.
3. Explicit Undo Mechanism: Provides actionable recovery primitives that immediately undo harmful steps upon detecting high-risk transitions.
4. Adaptive Time Window: Controls temporal scope through parameter K, capturing short-term or long-term reversibility without retraining.

Experimental Setup

Datasets

Uses two classical tabular "toy-text" environments from Gymnasium v1.2.0:

1. CliffWalking-v0: 4×12 grid, deterministic environment
   • Observation space: 48 reachable states
   • Action space: 4 discrete movements
   • Cliff penalty: -100, regular step: -1
2. Taxi-v3: 5×5 grid, taxi pickup-dropoff task
   • Observation space: 500 states
   • Action space: 6 actions
   • Illegal action penalty: -10, successful delivery: +20

Evaluation Metrics

• Average episode return
• Catastrophic event frequency (falls/illegal actions)
• Number of rollbacks
• Reward variance
• Trajectory efficiency (steps/episode)

Baseline Methods

• Baseline Q-Learning
• Rollback Only (RollbackOnly)
• Threshold Penalty Only (ThresholdPeAgent)
• Precedence Estimation Only (PrecedenceOnly)
• Full Model (FullModel)

Implementation Details

• Training budget: 100,000 independent episodes per environment
• Parameter settings: α=0.1, γ=0.99, ε=0.1
• Q-table initialization: Q_0=-1
• Environment-specific hyperparameter tuning

Experimental Results

Main Results

CliffWalking-v0 Environment

• Performance Improvement: Average return improved from -399.77 to -179.81 (+55.0%)
• Safety: Falls reduced from 2.209 to 0.004 (-99.8%)
• Variance Control: Reward standard deviation reduced from 563.78 to 160.97 (-71.4%)
• Efficiency: Steps increased by only 1.01% (181.06→182.89)

Taxi-v3 Environment

• Performance Improvement: Average return improved from -1652.93 to -567.09 (+65.7%)
• Safety: Illegal actions reduced from 110.217 to 0.069 (-99.9%)
• Variance Control: Reward standard deviation reduced from 652.74 to 267.00 (-59.1%)
• Trajectory Length: Steps increased by 2.46% (681.85→698.65)

Ablation Study

Ablation studies confirm that rollback is the primary driver:

• RollbackOnly recovers nearly all return improvements of the full model in both environments
• PrecedenceOnly performs poorly on both tasks
• The threshold mechanism is secondary, primarily adding value when paired with rollback

Parameter Sensitivity Analysis

Environment-Specific Hyperparameter Sensitivity:

• CliffWalking-v0: K=2, λ=0.6, penalty=1.2, Φ_0=0.0 (pessimistic prior)
• Taxi-v3: K=0, λ=0.8, penalty=1.1, Φ_0=0.8 (optimistic prior)

These contrasts demonstrate that reversibility-aware reinforcement learning requires environment-specific bias adjustments.

Related Work

Value Overestimation Solutions

• Double Q-Learning: Uses two independent estimators to decouple selection and evaluation
• TD3: Suppresses over-optimism through dual critics and delayed policy updates
• Maxmin Q-Learning: Interpolates among N critics

Safe Exploration Methods

1. Constraint-Based Methods: GSE framework, ActSafe, etc.
2. Verification-Based Methods: VELM and other formal verification approaches
3. Reward-Safety Trade-off Optimization: Gradient manipulation techniques

Positioning of This Work

Unlike existing methods, this paper introduces a reversibility-driven perspective, providing dynamic recoverability rather than static safety filters.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Significant Safety Improvements: Catastrophic failures reduced by >99% in both environments
2. Substantial Performance Gains: Cumulative rewards improved by 55-66%
3. Effective Variance Control: Significant reduction in variance of rewards and safety metrics
4. Environment Adaptability: Different environments require different optimal parameterizations

Limitations

1. Limited to Tabular Environments: Conclusions may not directly generalize to function approximation settings
2. Rollback Operation Assumptions: Requires access to safe prior state primitives
3. Hyperparameter Sensitivity: Requires environment-aware hyperparameter selection
4. Real-World System Application: Rollback in real systems may be non-trivial

Future Directions

1. Integrate rollback into function approximation settings
2. Expand experimental domains to narrow use cases for precedence estimation
3. Develop adaptive hyperparameter tuning across environments
4. Investigate real-world analogues of rollback in robotics and decision support systems

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Novelty: First to introduce explicit "undo" mechanisms into reinforcement learning with intuitive and novel concepts
2. Comprehensive Experiments: Thorough ablation studies, parameter sensitivity analysis, and statistical significance testing
3. Convincing Results: Significant and consistent improvements in both safety and performance
4. Solid Theoretical Foundation: Formalizes the concept of reversibility from human cognition into an algorithmic framework

Weaknesses

1. Environmental Limitations: Validation only in simple tabular environments, lacking verification in complex domains
2. Scalability Concerns: Questionable scalability of FIFO structures and tabular methods to large-scale problems
3. Practical Constraints: "Rollback" operations in real-world scenarios may be infeasible or costly
4. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: Lacks convergence guarantees and theoretical performance bounds

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new research directions for safe reinforcement learning
2. Practical Value: Provides an actionable solution framework for safety-critical applications
3. Reproducibility: Simple and explicit methodology, easy to reproduce and extend

Applicable Scenarios

1. Safety-Critical Systems: Autonomous driving, medical devices, industrial control
2. Game AI: Strategy games requiring avoidance of fatal errors
3. Robotic Control: Manipulation tasks requiring error correction capabilities
4. Financial Trading: Automated trading systems requiring risk control

References

The paper cites 48 relevant references covering foundational reinforcement learning theory, safe exploration, value overestimation, and other core domains, providing a solid theoretical foundation for this research.

Overall Assessment: This is an innovative and practically valuable paper that successfully incorporates the human cognitive concept of "undo" into reinforcement learning, achieving significant improvements in both safety and performance. While currently limited to tabular environments, it opens new directions for future safe reinforcement learning research.