Cited by 359Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsArtificial Intelligence in GamesArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revisiting the Arcade Learning Environment: Evaluation Protocols and Open Problems for General Agents

Open access

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1613/jair.5699

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

15 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Hausknecht, M.; Lehman, J.; Miikkulainen, R.; and Stone, P. 2013. A neuroevolution approach to general atari game playing. In IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelli- gence and AI in Games.
  2. Mnih, V.; Kavukcuoglu, K.; Silver, D.; Graves, A.; Antonoglou, I.; Wierstra, D.; and Riedmiller, M. 2013. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. CoRR abs/1312.5602. · arXiv
  3. Albrecht, S. V., L., J. C., Buckeridge, D. L., Botea, A., Caragea, C., Chi, C., Damoulas, T., Dilkina, B. N., Eaton, E., Fazli, P., Ganzfried, S., Lindauer, M. T., Machado, M. C., Malitsky, Y., Marcus, G., Meijer, S., Rossi, F., Shaban-Nejad, A., Thiebaux, S., Veloso, M. M., Walsh, T., Wang, C., Zhang, J., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Reports on the 2015 AAAI Workshop Program. AI Magazine, 36 (2), 90-101.
  4. Campbell, M., Hoane, Jr., A. J., & Hsu, F.-h. (2002). Deep Blue. Artificial Intelligence, 134 (1-2), 57-83.
  5. Harutyunyan, A., Bellemare, M. G., Stepleton, T., & Munos, R. (2016). Q(λ) with Off- Policy Corrections. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), pp. 305-320.
  6. Hutter, M. (2005). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions based on Algorith- mic Probability. Springer.
  7. Kearns, M. J., & Singh, S. P. (2002). Near-Optimal Reinforcement Learning in Polynomial Time. Machine Learning, 49 (2-3), 209-232.
  8. Nair, A., Srinivasan, P., Blackwell, S., Alcicek, C., Fearon, R., Maria, A. D., Panneershelvam, V., Suleyman, M., Beattie, C., Petersen, S., Legg, S., Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., & Silver, D. (2015). Massively Parallel Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning. In ICML Deep Learning Workshop.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 359

Metadata

Authors
Machado, M. C., Bellemare, M. G., Talvitie, E., Veness, J., Hausknecht, M., & Bowling, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Franklin & Marshall College (US)
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
2018-03-19
Volume
61
Pages
523-562
ISSN
1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754879180
Cited by
359
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 39
FWCI
35.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1552533)
  • Compute Canada
  • Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute
  • DeepMind
  • Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures
  • Alberta Innovates
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
Arcade Learning Environment, evaluation methodology, benchmark results, deep Q-network, game modes, evaluation best practices

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