# SegBench-GC: Testing Segmentation Invariance in Multi-Step Offline Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27678 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27678/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Diffusion and flow policies for offline RL, one of 13 directions in Offline RL and imitation learning from data.
- Builds on 10 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Offline RL and imitation learning from data / [Diffusion and flow policies for offline RL](https://mlsanity.com/offlinerl/diffusion-and-flow-policies-for-offline-rl/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Conservative Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.04779/) (2020)
- [D4RL: Datasets for Deep Data-Driven Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07219/) (2020)
- [Offline Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Q-Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.06169/) (2021)
- [Deep Reinforcement Learning at the Edge of the Statistical Precipice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13264/) (2021)
- [OGBench: Benchmarking Offline Goal-Conditioned RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20092/) (2024)
- [Time Limits in Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00378/) (2017)
- [Horizon Reduction Makes RL Scalable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04168/) (2025)
- [Option-aware Temporally Abstracted Value for Offline Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12737/) (2025)
- [Decoupled Q-Chunking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.10926/) (2025)
- [Transitive RL: Value Learning via Divide and Conquer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22512/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Offline goal-conditioned reinforcement learning (GCRL) often uses trajectory structure for future-goal sampling and multi-step targets, yet logged trajectories may be partitioned for administrative reasons that do not correspond to termination. We introduce SegBench-GC, a controlled stress test of segmentation invariance that holds transitions, source trajectories, goal sampling, optimization settings, and evaluation fixed while varying only artificial backup boundaries and whether those boundaries retain continuation value. Continuation-valid targets (CVT) provide the segmentation-consistent control: reward accumulation stops at an artificial cut, but the target bootstraps from its stored successor. In a matched-count PointMaze study with 35,000 artificial cuts, three segmentation realizations, and three optimization seeds, final 50-episode-per-task success is 50.5% uncut, 39.1% with CVT, and 19.1% when the same cuts are treated as absorbing; across segmentation realizations, naive mean success ranges from 4.8% to 31.9%. An independent published n-step baseline (n=25) from the Decoupled Q-Chunking codebase shows the same failure on Puzzle-4x5: 47.2% uncut, 58.5% CVT, and 0.27% naive across three optimization seeds. A target-level diagnostic verifies the analytic target difference to numerical precision, and learned-critic diagnostics show a large optimistic shift under naive handling while CVT remains approximately aligned with the uncut critic. CVT applies standard continuation bootstrapping rather than a new Bellman rule; the contribution is the controlled benchmark, failure isolation, and cross-learner evidence that administrative segmentation can materially change multi-step offline GCRL.