Deep reinforcement learning (RL) has shown impressive results in a variety of domains, learning directly from high-dimensional sensory streams. However, when neural networks are trained in a fixed environment, such as a single level in a video game, they will usually overfit and fail to generalize to new levels. When RL models overfit, even slight modifications to the environment can result in poor agent performance. This paper explores how procedurally generated levels during training can increase generality. We show that for some games procedural level generation enables generalization to new levels within the same distribution. Additionally, it is possible to achieve better performance with less data by manipulating the difficulty of the levels in response to the performance of the agent. The generality of the learned behaviors is also evaluated on a set of human-designed levels. The results suggest that the ability to generalize to human-designed levels highly depends on the design of the level generators. We apply dimensionality reduction and clustering techniques to visualize the generators' distributions of levels and analyze to what degree they can produce levels similar to those designed by a human.
Recent years have witnessed significant progresses in deep Reinforcement Learning (RL). Empowered with large scale neural networks, carefully designed architectures, novel training algorithms and massively parallel computing devices, researchers are able to attack many challenging RL problems. However, in machine learning, more training power comes with a potential risk of more overfitting. As deep RL techniques are being applied to critical problems such as healthcare and finance, it is important to understand the generalization behaviors of the trained agents. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study of standard RL agents and find that they could overfit in various ways. Moreover, overfitting could happen "robustly": commonly used techniques in RL that add stochasticity do not necessarily prevent or detect overfitting. In particular, the same agents and learning algorithms could have drastically different test performance, even when all of them achieve optimal rewards during training. The observations call for more principled and careful evaluation protocols in RL. We conclude with a general discussion on overfitting in RL and a study of the generalization behaviors from the perspective of inductive bias.