PAC Guarantees for Reinforcement Learning: Sample Complexity, Coverage, and Structure
Joshua Steier

TL;DR
This paper surveys recent advances in PAC guarantees for reinforcement learning, introducing the CSO framework to analyze sample complexity, coverage, and structure, and providing practical tools for practitioners.
Contribution
It introduces the Coverage-Structure-Objective (CSO) framework to interpret and compare PAC results across different RL settings and models.
Findings
CSO framework decomposes PAC results into coverage, structure, and objective factors.
Provides tight tabular baselines and links to regret bounds.
Offers practical tools like rate lookup tables and coverage diagnostics.
Abstract
When data is scarce or mistakes are costly, average-case metrics fall short. What a practitioner needs is a guarantee: with probability at least , the learned policy is -close to optimal after episodes. This is the PAC promise, and between 2018 and 2025 the RL theory community made striking progress on when such promises can be kept. We survey that progress. Our organizing tool is the Coverage-Structure-Objective (CSO) framework, proposed here, which decomposes nearly every PAC sample complexity result into three factors: coverage (how data were obtained), structure (intrinsic MDP or function-class complexity), and objective (what the learner must deliver). CSO is not a theorem but an interpretive template that identifies bottlenecks and makes cross-setting comparison immediate. The technical core covers tight tabular baselines and the uniform-PAC bridge to…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsReinforcement Learning in Robotics · Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
