PreprintCited by 18Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningArtificial Intelligence in Games

Transient Non-Stationarity and Generalisation in Deep Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Igl, Maximilian, Farquhar, Gregory, Luketina, Jelena, Boehmer, Wendelin, Whiteson, Shimon·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Non-stationarity can arise in Reinforcement Learning (RL) even in stationary environments. For example, most RL algorithms collect new data throughout training, using a non-stationary behaviour policy. Due to the transience of this non-stationarity, it is often not explicitly addressed in deep RL and a single neural network is continually updated. However, we find evidence that neural networks exhibit a memory effect where these transient non-stationarities can permanently impact the latent representation and adversely affect generalisation performance. Consequently, to improve generalisation of deep RL agents, we propose Iterated Relearning (ITER). ITER augments standard RL training by repeated knowledge transfer of the current policy into a freshly initialised network, which thereby experiences less non-stationarity during training. Experimentally, we show that ITER improves performance on the challenging generalisation benchmarks ProcGen and Multiroom.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2006.05826

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Igl, M., Farquhar, G., Luketina, J., Boehmer, W., & Whiteson, S.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118409705
Cited by
17
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
deep reinforcement learning, generalization, knowledge transfer, memory effects, latent representations, behavioral public policy, Procgen

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