While deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has led to numerous successes in recent years, reproducing these successes can be extremely challenging. One reproducibility challenge particularly relevant to DRL is nondeterminism in the training process, which can substantially affect the results. Motivated by this challenge, we study the positive impacts of deterministic implementations in eliminating nondeterminism in training. To do so, we consider the particular case of the deep Q-learning algorithm, for which we produce a deterministic implementation by identifying and controlling all sources of nondeterminism in the training process. One by one, we then allow individual sources of nondeterminism to affect our otherwise deterministic implementation, and measure the impact of each source on the variance in performance. We find that individual sources of nondeterminism can substantially impact the performance of agent, illustrating the benefits of deterministic implementations. In addition, we also discuss the important role of deterministic implementations in achieving exact replicability of results.
While reproducibility has been explored across artificial intelligence and machine learning @cite_6 @cite_23 , reproducibility in DRL remains relatively uncharted. In the context of DRL, the effects of hyperparameters, codebases, evaluation metrics, random seeds, and aspects of the environment have been studied to a degree @cite_29 @cite_26 @cite_30 . @cite_29 show that the choice of hyperparameters, network architecture, reward scale, and random seeds can have a dramatic effect on the performance of an agent. They show that some algorithms perform better than others in environments with stable dynamics, while performing worse in environments with unstable dynamics. They also find that differences in implementation details between codebases implementing the same DRL algorithm can result in drastically different performances. Perhaps their most shocking result is that two groups of networks trained from the same algorithm implementation can yield statistically significantly different performances solely due to differences in global random seeds.
@cite_30 @cite_26 @cite_29 @cite_6 @cite_23
2963403143 2747402019 2754517384 2130126144
The Arcade Learning Environment (ALE) is an evaluation platform that poses the challenge of building AI agents with general competency across dozens of Atari 2600 games. It supports a variety of different problem settings and it has been receiving increasing attention from the scientific community, leading to some high-profile success stories such as the much publicized Deep Q-Networks (DQN). In this article we take a big picture look at how the ALE is being used by the research community. We show how diverse the evaluation methodologies in the ALE have become with time, and highlight some key concerns when evaluating agents in the ALE. We use this discussion to present some methodological best practices and provide new benchmark results using these best practices. To further the progress in the field, we introduce a new version of the ALE that supports multiple game modes and provides a form of stochasticity we call sticky actions. We conclude this big picture look by revisiting challenges posed when the ALE was introduced, summarizing the state-of-the-art in various problems and highlighting problems that remain open. Policy gradient methods in reinforcement learning have become increasingly prevalent for state-of-the-art performance in continuous control tasks. Novel methods typically benchmark against a few key algorithms such as deep deterministic policy gradients and trust region policy optimization. As such, it is important to present and use consistent baselines experiments. However, this can be difficult due to general variance in the algorithms, hyper-parameter tuning, and environment stochasticity. We investigate and discuss: the significance of hyper-parameters in policy gradients for continuous control, general variance in the algorithms, and reproducibility of reported results. We provide guidelines on reporting novel results as comparisons against baseline methods such that future researchers can make informed decisions when investigating novel methods. In recent years, significant progress has been made in solving challenging problems across various domains using deep reinforcement learning (RL). Reproducing existing work and accurately judging the improvements offered by novel methods is vital to sustaining this progress. Unfortunately, reproducing results for state-of-the-art deep RL methods is seldom straightforward. In particular, non-determinism in standard benchmark environments, combined with variance intrinsic to the methods, can make reported results tough to interpret. Without significance metrics and tighter standardization of experimental reporting, it is difficult to determine whether improvements over the prior state-of-the-art are meaningful. In this paper, we investigate challenges posed by reproducibility, proper experimental techniques, and reporting procedures. We illustrate the variability in reported metrics and results when comparing against common baselines and suggest guidelines to make future results in deep RL more reproducible. We aim to spur discussion about how to ensure continued progress in the field by minimizing wasted effort stemming from results that are non-reproducible and easily misinterpreted. At various machine learning conferences, at various times, there have been discussions arising from the inability to replicate the experimental results published in a paper. There seems to be a wide spread view that we need to do something to address this problem, as it is essential to the advancement of our field. The most compelling argument would seem to be that reproducibility of experimental results is the hallmark of science. Therefore, given that most of us regard machine learning as a scientific discipline, being able to replicate experiments is paramount. I want to challenge this view by separating the notion of reproducibility, a generally desirable property, from replicability, its poor cousin. I claim there are important differences between the two. Reproducibility requires changes; replicability avoids them. Although reproducibility is desirable, I contend that the impoverished version, replicability, is one not worth having.