PreprintCited by 42Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMachine Learning and Algorithms

RL Unplugged: A Suite of Benchmarks for Offline Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Gulcehre, Caglar, Wang, Ziyu, Novikov, Alexander, Paine, Tom Le, Colmenarejo, Sergio Gomez, Zolna, Konrad, Agarwal, Rishabh, Merel, Josh +10 more·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Offline methods for reinforcement learning have a potential to help bridge the gap between reinforcement learning research and real-world applications. They make it possible to learn policies from offline datasets, thus overcoming concerns associated with online data collection in the real-world, including cost, safety, or ethical concerns. In this paper, we propose a benchmark called RL Unplugged to evaluate and compare offline RL methods. RL Unplugged includes data from a diverse range of domains including games (e.g., Atari benchmark) and simulated motor control problems (e.g., DM Control Suite). The datasets include domains that are partially or fully observable, use continuous or discrete actions, and have stochastic vs. deterministic dynamics. We propose detailed evaluation protocols for each domain in RL Unplugged and provide an extensive analysis of supervised learning and offline RL methods using these protocols. We will release data for all our tasks and open-source all algorithms presented in this paper. We hope that our suite of benchmarks will increase the reproducibility of experiments and make it possible to study challenging tasks with a limited computational budget, thus making RL research both more systematic and more accessible across the community. Moving forward, we view RL Unplugged as a living benchmark suite that will evolve and grow with datasets contributed by the research community and ourselves. Our project page is available on https://git.io/JJUhd.

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.2006.13888

Cites

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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gulcehre, C., Wang, Z., Novikov, A., Paine, T. L., Colmenarejo, S. G., Zolna, K., Agarwal, R., Merel, J., Mankowitz, D., Paduraru, C., Dulac-Arnold, G., Li, J., Norouzi, M., Hoffman, M., Nachum, O., Tucker, G., Heess, N., & de Freitas, N.
Affiliations
  • Wuhan University (CN)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
33
Pages
7248-7259
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3101009114
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • neural information processing systems
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 › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
offline reinforcement learning, benchmark suite, motor control, supervised learning comparison, evaluation protocol, reproducibility, open-source dataset

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