Cited by 87Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsMachine Learning and AlgorithmsArtificial Intelligence in Games

Protecting against evaluation overfitting in empirical reinforcement learning

Whiteson, Shimon, Tanner, Brian, Taylor, Matthew E., Stone, Peter·2011·2011 IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (ADPRL)

Abstract

Empirical evaluations play an important role in machine learning. However, the usefulness of any evaluation depends on the empirical methodology employed. Designing good empirical methodologies is difficult in part because agents can overfit test evaluations and thereby obtain misleadingly high scores. We argue that reinforcement learning is particularly vulnerable to environment overfitting and propose as a remedy generalized methodologies, in which evaluations are based on multiple environments sampled from a distribution. In addition, we consider how to summarize performance when scores from different environments may not have commensurate values. Finally, we present proof-of-concept results demonstrating how these methodologies can validate an intuitively useful range-adaptive tile coding method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/adprl.2011.5967363

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evaluating RL policies on exactly the same environment they were trained on is likely to lead to strong evaluation overfitting.

    “This is in stark contrast to the standard assumptions of supervised learning where the training and testing sets are disjoint and is likely to lead to strong evaluation overfitting (Whiteson et al., 2011).”

    From A Survey of Zero-shot Generalisation in Deep Reinforcement Learning (2023) · cites this paper as Whiteson et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whiteson, S., Tanner, B., Taylor, M. E., & Stone, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Lafayette College (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
2011 IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (ADPRL)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-04
Pages
120-127
OpenAlex
W2104228245
Cited by
86
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.51
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
evaluation methodology, multiple environments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review