A Representation Optimization Dichotomy, Lie-Algebraic Policy Optimization
On the map: Deep reinforcement learning methods → RL theory and sample complexity
Abstract (arXiv)
Structured reinforcement learning and stochastic optimization often involve parameters evolving on matrix Lie groups such as rotations and rigid-body transformations. We establish a representation-optimization dichotomy for Lie-algebra-parameterized Gaussian policy objectives in the Lie Group MDP class: the gradient Lipschitz constant L(R), governing step size, convergence, and sample complexity of first-order methods, depends only on the algebraic type of g, uniformly over all objectives, independent of reward or transition structure. Specifically, L = O(1) for compact g (e.g., so(n), su(n)), and L = Theta(exp(2R)) for g = gl(n), with O(exp(2R)) for all algebras with a hyperbolic element. A key lower bound shows this exponential growth cannot be canceled by interaction between the exponential map and the objective, making the dichotomy intrinsic to the algebra.This yields an algorithmic consequence: for compact algebras, radius-independent smoothness enables O(1/sqrt(T)) convergence using an O(n^2 J) Lie-algebraic projection step instead of O(d_g^3) Fisher inversion. A Kantorovich alignment bound alpha >= 2 kappa / (kappa + 1) provides a computable condition under which this projection approximates natural gradient updates. Experiments on SO(3)^J and SE(3) confirm the theory: constant smoothness for compact algebras, polynomial growth for SE(3), and alignment across condition regimes. The projection step achieves 1.1-1.7x speedup over Cholesky-based Fisher inversion, with increasing gains at larger scales.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RL theory and sample complexity, one of 15 directions in Deep reinforcement learning methods. Builds on 15 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2026.
Builds on
15 of 37 references.
References · 15
- 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,580
- 2021Geometric Deep Learning: Grids, Groups, Graphs, Geodesics, and Gaugescited by 1,167
- 2016Group Equivariant Convolutional Networkscited by 1,165
- 2016Optimization Methods for Large-Scale Machine Learningcited by 1,150
- 2015Optimizing Neural Networks with Kronecker-factored Approximate Curvaturecited by 796
- 2013Stochastic First- and Zeroth-order Methods for Nonconvex Stochastic Programmingcited by 724
- 2015Unitary Evolution Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 294
- 2020MDP Homomorphic Networks: Group Symmetries in Reinforcement Learningcited by 142
- 2019Cheap Orthogonal Constraints in Neural Networks: A Simple Parametrization of the Orthogonal and Unitary Groupcited by 134
- 2018A micro Lie theory for state estimation in roboticscited by 124
- 2017Scalable trust-region method for deep reinforcement learning using Kronecker-factored approximationcited by 121
- 2016Full-Capacity Unitary Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 94
3 more
- 2016First-order Methods for Geodesically Convex Optimizationcited by 93
- 2022Finite-Time Analysis of Natural Actor-Critic for POMDPscited by 13
- 2022Optimization on Manifolds via Graph Gaussian Processescited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Mathematical methods of reinforcement learning
- 2026Wasserstein Formulation of Reinforcement Learning. An Optimal Transport Perspective on Policy Optimization
- 2025Addressing Finite-Horizon MDPs via Low-Rank Tensor Value Approximation
- 2025Spectral Representation-based Reinforcement Learning
- 2024Leveraging Symmetry to Accelerate Learning of Trajectory Tracking Controllers for Free-Flying Robotic Systems
- 2026DROGO: Default Representation Objective via Graph Optimization in Reinforcement Learning
- 2026Operator-Guided Invariance Learning for Continuous Reinforcement Learning
- 2023Reinforcement Learning with General Utilities: Simpler Variance Reduction and Large State-Action Space