CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 28Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Games

Evolving Curricula with Regret-Based Environment Design

Open access
Parker-Holder, Jack, Jiang, Minqi, Dennis, Michael, Samvelyan, Mikayel, Foerster, Jakob, Grefenstette, Edward, Rocktäschel, Tim·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2203.01302arXiv 2203.01302
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It remains a significant challenge to train generally capable agents with reinforcement learning (RL). A promising avenue for improving the robustness of RL agents is through the use of curricula. One such class of methods frames environment design as a game between a student and a teacher, using regret-based objectives to produce environment instantiations (or levels) at the frontier of the student agent's capabilities. These methods benefit from their generality, with theoretical guarantees at equilibrium, yet they often struggle to find effective levels in challenging design spaces. By contrast, evolutionary approaches seek to incrementally alter environment complexity, resulting in potentially open-ended learning, but often rely on domain-specific heuristics and vast amounts of computational resources. In this paper we propose to harness the power of evolution in a principled, regret-based curriculum. Our approach, which we call Adversarially Compounding Complexity by Editing Levels (ACCEL), seeks to constantly produce levels at the frontier of an agent's capabilities, resulting in curricula that start simple but become increasingly complex. ACCEL maintains the theoretical benefits of prior regret-based methods, while providing significant empirical gains in a diverse set of environments. An interactive version of the paper is available at accelagent.github.io.

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.2203.01302

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

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?

  • The authors primarily focus on PVL because the original implementations of ACCEL and PLR⊥ found better success with the PVL scoring function for the experiments domains used in this paper.

    “We primarily focus on PVL because the original implementations of ACCEL and PLR ⊥ in Jiang et al. [27], Parker-Holder et al. [37] found better success with the PVL scoring function for the experiments domains, i.e. Minigrid, BipedalWalker, and CarRacing, used in this paper.”

    From Improving Environment Novelty Quantification for Effective Unsupervised Environment Design (2024) · cites this paper as Parker-Holder et al. [37]

    The hyperparameter table (C.3, p. 26) lists positive value loss as ACCEL’s scoring function across its experimental settings, and the methods section (p. 4) says ACCEL follows PLR in using it to estimate regret. Our copy does not show that PVL performed better than other scoring functions, and its experiments do not establish that rationale for CarRacing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The UED adversary is rewarded for choosing levels that maximise the agent's regret, and this has been empirically shown to automatically induce a curriculum of progressively harder levels that aid performance and generalisation.

    “The adversary is rewarded for choosing levels that maximise the agent's regret, defined as the difference in return between the current and optimal agent.This has been empirically shown to automatically induce a curriculum of progressively harder levels that aid the performance and generalisation properties of the learned agent.”

    From Craftax: A Lightning-Fast Benchmark for Open-Ended Reinforcement Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Parker-Holder et al., 2022

  • ACCEL extends PLR methods by mutating previously sampled high-regret levels, showing that complexity can emerge starting from simple levels.

    “ACCEL (Parker-Holder et al. 2022) extends PLR methods by mutating previously sampled high-regret levels, showing that complexity can emerge starting from simple levels.”

    From Beyond Fixed Tasks: Unsupervised Environment Design for Task-Level Pairs (2025) · cites this paper as Parker-Holder et al. 2022

  • ATLAS' instantiation incorporates task-aware mutations leveraging the RM structure.

    “Unlike the original ACCEL (Parker-Holder et al. 2022), which only applied level mutations, ATLAS' instantiation incorporates task-aware mutations leveraging the RM structure.”

    From Beyond Fixed Tasks: Unsupervised Environment Design for Task-Level Pairs (2025) · cites this paper as Parker-Holder et al. 2022

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Agarwal, R., Schwarzer, M., Castro, P. S., Courville, A., and Bellemare, M. G. (2021b). Deep reinforcement learning at the edge of the statistical precipice. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems .
  2. Andrychowicz, M., Crow, D., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Fong, R., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Tobin, J., Abbeel, P., and Zaremba, W. (2017). Hindsight experience replay. In Guyon, I., von Luxburg, U., Bengio, S., Wallach, H. M., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S. V. N., and Garnett, R., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 .
  3. Andrychowicz, O. M., Baker, B., Chociej, M., J´ ozefowicz, R., McGrew, B., Pachocki, J., Petron, A., Plappert, M., Powell, G., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Sidor, S., Tobin, J., Welinder, P., Weng, L., and Zaremba, W. (2020). Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 39(1):3-20.
  4. Ball, P. J., Lu, C., Parker-Holder, J., and Roberts, S. J. (2021). Augmented world models facilitate zero-shot dynamics generalization from a single offline environment. In The International Conference on Machine Learning .
  5. Baranes, A. and Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2009). Robust intrinsically motivated exploration and active learning. pages 1 - 6.
  6. Berner, C., Brockman, G., Chan, B., Cheung, V., Debiak, P., Dennison, C., Farhi, D., Fischer, Q., Hashme, S., Hesse, C., J´ ozefowicz, R., Gray, S., Olsson, C., Pachocki, J., Petrov, M., de Oliveira Pinto, H. P., Raiman, J., Salimans, T., Schlatter, J., Schneider, J., Sidor, S., Sutskever, I., Tang, J., Wolski, F., and Zhang, S. (2019). Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning. CoRR , abs/1912.06680. · arXiv
  7. Berthouze, L. and Lungarella, M. (2004). Motor skill acquisition under environmental perturbations: On the necessity of alternate freezing and freeing of degrees of freedom. Adapt. Behav. , 12(1):47-64.
  8. Bhaumik, D., Khalifa, A., Green, M. C., and Togelius, J. (2020). Tree search versus optimization approaches for map generation. In AAAI 2020 .
  9. Brant, J. C. and Stanley, K. O. (2017). Minimal criterion coevolution: A new approach to open-ended search. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference , GECCO '17, page 67-74, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
  10. Campero, A., Raileanu, R., Kuttler, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., Rockt¨ aschel, T., and Grefenstette, E. (2021). Learning with AMIGo: Adversarially motivated intrinsic goals. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  11. Cobbe, K., Hesse, C., Hilton, J., and Schulman, J. (2020). Leveraging procedural generation to benchmark reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 20482056.
  12. Dennis, M., Jaques, N., Vinitsky, E., Bayen, A., Russell, S., Critch, A., and Levine, S. (2020). Emergent complexity and zero-shot transfer via unsupervised environment design. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33.
  13. Dharna, A., Togelius, J., and Soros, L. B. (2020). Cogeneration of game levels and game-playing agents. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , 16(1):203-209.
  14. Earle, S., Edwards, M., Khalifa, A., Bontrager, P., and Togelius, J. (2021a). Learning controllable content generators. In IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) .
  15. Eimer, T., Biedenkapp, A., Hutter, F., and Lindauer, M. (2021). Self-paced context evaluation for contextual reinforcement learning. In The International Conference on Machine Learning .
  16. Everett, R., Cobb, A., Markham, A., and Roberts, S. (2019). Optimising worlds to evaluate and influence reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems , AAMAS '19.
  17. Fang, K., Zhu, Y., Savarese, S., and Li, F.-F. (2021). Adaptive procedural task generation for hard-exploration problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  18. Florensa, C., Held, D., Geng, X., and Abbeel, P. (2018). Automatic goal generation for reinforcement learning agents. In Dy, J. and Krause, A., editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 1515-1528. PMLR.
  19. Florensa, C., Held, D., Wulfmeier, M., Zhang, M., and Abbeel, P. (2017). Reverse curriculum generation for reinforcement learning. In 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, CoRL 2017, Mountain View, California, USA, November 13-15, 2017, Proceedings , volume 78 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 482-495. PMLR.
  20. Gajewski, A., Clune, J., Stanley, K. O., and Lehman, J. (2019). Evolvability ES: Scalable and direct optimization of evolvability. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference , GECCO '19, pages 107-115, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  21. Ghosh, D., Rahme, J., Kumar, A., Zhang, A., Adams, R. P., and Levine, S. (2021). Why generalization in rl is difficult: Epistemic pomdps and implicit partial observability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06277 . · arXiv
  22. Hu, H. and Foerster, J. N. (2020). Simplified action decoder for deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 . OpenReview.net.
  23. Igl, M., Ciosek, K., Li, Y., Tschiatschek, S., Zhang, C., Devlin, S., and Hofmann, K. (2019). Generalization in reinforcement learning with selective noise injection and information bottleneck. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems .
  24. Jakobi, N. (1997). Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope-of-noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior , 6(2):325-368.
  25. James, S., Davison, A. J., and Johns, E. (2017). Transferring end-to-end visuomotor control from simulation to real world for a multi-stage task. In 1st Conference on Robot Learning .
  26. Jiang, M., Dennis, M., Parker-Holder, J., Foerster, J., Grefenstette, E., and Rockt¨ aschel, T. (2021a). Replay-guided adversarial environment design. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems .
  27. Jiang, M., Grefenstette, E., and Rockt¨ aschel, T. (2021b). Prioritized level replay. In The International Conference on Machine Learning .
  28. Juliani, A., Khalifa, A., Berges, V., Harper, J., Teng, E., Henry, H., Crespi, A., Togelius, J., and Lange, D. (2019). Obstacle Tower: A Generalization Challenge in Vision, Control, and Planning. In IJCAI .
  29. Justesen, N., Torrado, R. R., Bontrager, P., Khalifa, A., Togelius, J., and Risi, S. (2018). Procedural level generation improves generality of deep reinforcement learning. CoRR , abs/1806.10729. · arXiv
  30. Keren, S., Pineda, L., Gal, A., Karpas, E., and Zilberstein, S. (2017). Equi-reward utility maximizing design in stochastic environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling .
  31. Keren, S., Pineda, L., Gal, A., Karpas, E., and Zilberstein, S. (2019). Efficient heuristic search for optimal environment redesign. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , volume 29, pages 246-254.
  32. Khalifa, A., Bontrager, P., Earle, S., and Togelius, J. (2020). Pcgrl: Procedural content generation via reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , 16(1):95-101.
  33. Kirk, R., Zhang, A., Grefenstette, E., and Rockt¨ aschel, T. (2021). A survey of generalisation in deep reinforcement learning. CoRR , abs/2111.09794. · arXiv
  34. Klink, P., Abdulsamad, H., Belousov, B., and Peters, J. (2019). Self-paced contextual reinforcement learning. In Conference on Robot Learning .
  35. Kostrikov, I., Yarats, D., and Fergus, R. (2021). Image augmentation is all you need: Regularizing deep reinforcement learning from pixels. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  36. K¨ uttler, H., Nardelli, N., Miller, A. H., Raileanu, R., Selvatici, M., Grefenstette, E., and Rockt¨ aschel, T. (2020). The NetHack Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) .
  37. Laskin, M., Lee, K., Stooke, A., Pinto, L., Abbeel, P., and Srinivas, A. (2020). Reinforcement learming with augmented data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 .
  38. Lehman, J. and Miikkulainen, R. (2015). Extinction events can accelerate evolution. PloS one , 10(8):e0132886.
  39. Liu, J., Snodgrass, S., Khalifa, A., Risi, S., Yannakakis, G. N., and Togelius, J. (2021). Deep learning for procedural content generation. Neural Comput. Appl. , 33(1):1937.
  40. Matiisen, T., Oliver, A., Cohen, T., and Schulman, J. (2020). Teacher-student curriculum learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , 31(9):3732-3740.
  41. Mazumdar, E., Ratliff, L. J., and Sastry, S. S. (2020). On gradient-based learning in continuous games. SIAM J. Math. Data Sci. , 2(1):103-131.
  42. Mehta, B., Diaz, M., Golemo, F., Pal, C. J., and Paull, L. (2020). Active domain randomization. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning .
  43. Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Graves, A., Antonoglou, I., Wierstra, D., and Riedmiller, M. A. (2013). Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. ArXiv , abs/1312.5602. · arXiv
  44. OpenAI, Akkaya, I., Andrychowicz, M., Chociej, M., Litwin, M., McGrew, B., Petron, A., Paino, A., Plappert, M., Powell, G., Ribas, R., Schneider, J., Tezak, N., Tworek, J., Welinder, P., Weng, L., Yuan, Q., Zaremba, W., and Zhang, L. (2019). Solving rubik's cube with a robot hand. CoRR , abs/1910.07113. · arXiv
  45. Parker-Holder, J., Rajan, R., Song, X., Biedenkapp, A., Miao, Y., Eimer, T., Zhang, B., Nguyen, V., Calandra, R., Faust, A., Hutter, F., and Lindauer, M. (2022). Automated reinforcement learning (autorl): A survey and open problems. CoRR , abs/2201.03916. · arXiv
  46. Peng, X. B., Andrychowicz, M., Zaremba, W., and Abbeel, P. (2017). Sim-to-real transfer of robotic control with dynamics randomization. CoRR , abs/1710.06537. · arXiv
  47. Perez-Liebana, D., Liu, J., Khalifa, A., Gaina, R. D., Togelius, J., and Lucas, S. M. (2019). General video game ai: A multitrack framework for evaluating agents, games, and content generation algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Games , 11(3):195-214.
  48. Pinto, L., Davidson, J., and Gupta, A. (2017). Supervision via competition: Robot adversaries for learning tasks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 1601-1608.
  49. Pong, V., Dalal, M., Lin, S., Nair, A., Bahl, S., and Levine, S. (2020). Skew-fit: State-covering self-supervised reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 77837792.
  50. Portelas, R., Colas, C., Hofmann, K., and Oudeyer, P. (2019). Teacher algorithms for curriculum learning of deep RL in continuously parameterized environments. In Kaelbling, L. P., Kragic, D., and Sugiura, K., editors, 3rd Annual Conference on Robot Learning, CoRL 2019, Osaka, Japan, October 30 - November 1, 2019, Proceedings , volume 100 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 835-853. PMLR.
  51. Portelas, R., Colas, C., Weng, L., Hofmann, K., and Oudeyer, P.-Y. (2020). Automatic curriculum learning for deep rl: A short survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04664 . · arXiv
  52. Racaniere, S., Lampinen, A., Santoro, A., Reichert, D., Firoiu, V., and Lillicrap, T. (2020). Automated curriculum generation through setter-solver interactions. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  53. Raileanu, R., Goldstein, M., Yarats, D., Kostrikov, I., and Fergus, R. (2021). Automatic data augmentation for generalization in deep reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems .
  54. Raparthy, S. C., Mehta, B., Golemo, F., and Paull, L. (2020). Generating automatic curricula via self-supervised active domain randomization. CoRR , abs/2002.07911. · arXiv
  55. Raup, D. M. (1986). Biological extinction in earth history. Science , 231(4745):1528-1533.
  56. Robotics: Science and Systems XIII, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, July 12-16, 2017 .
  57. Samvelyan, M., Kirk, R., Kurin, V., Parker-Holder, J., Jiang, M., Hambro, E., Petroni, F., Kuttler, H., Grefenstette, E., and Rockt¨ aschel, T. (2021). Minihack the planet: A sandbox for open-ended reinforcement learning research. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track .
  58. Savage, L. J. (1951). The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical association .
  59. Schulman, J., Moritz, P., Levine, S., Jordan, M., and Abbeel, P. (2016). High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
  60. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. (2016-2018). Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 . · arXiv
  61. Song, X., Jiang, Y., Tu, S., Du, Y ., and Neyshabur, B. (2020). Observational overfitting in reinforcement learning. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 . OpenReview.net.
  62. Soros, L. and Stanley, K. (2014). Identifying necessary conditions for open-ended evolution through the artificial life world of chromaria. Artificial Life Conference Proceedings , (26):793-800.
  63. Sturtevant, N., Decroocq, N., Tripodi, A., and Guzdial, M. (2020). The unexpected consequence of incremental design changes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , volume 16, pages 130-136.
  64. Sukhbaatar, S., Lin, Z., Kostrikov, I., Synnaeve, G., Szlam, A., and Fergus, R. (2018). Intrinsic motivation and automatic curricula via asymmetric self-play. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  65. Summerville, A., Snodgrass, S., Guzdial, M., Holmg˚ ard, C., Hoover, A. K., Isaksen, A., Nealen, A., and Togelius, J. (2018). Procedural content generation via machine learning (PCGML). IEEE Trans. Games , 10(3):257-270.
  66. Sutton, R. S. and Barto, A. G. (1998). Introduction to Reinforcement Learning . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1st edition.
  67. Team, O. E. L., Stooke, A., Mahajan, A., Barros, C., Deck, C., Bauer, J., Sygnowski, J., Trebacz, M., Jaderberg, M., Mathieu, M., McAleese, N., Bradley-Schmieg, N., Wong, N., Porcel, N., Raileanu, R., Hughes-Fitt, S., Dalibard, V ., and Czarnecki, W. M. (2021). Open-ended learning leads to generally capable agents. CoRR , abs/2107.12808. · arXiv
  68. Tobin, J., Fong, R., Ray, A., Schneider, J., Zaremba, W., and Abbeel, P. (2017). Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, September 24-28, 2017 , pages 23-30. IEEE.
  69. Togelius, J. and Schmidhuber, J. (2008). An experiment in automatic game design. In 2008 IEEE Symposium On Computational Intelligence and Games , pages 111-118.
  70. Vinyals, O., Babuschkin, I., Czarnecki, W. M., Mathieu, M., Dudzik, A., Chung, J., Choi, D. H., Powell, R., Ewalds, T., Georgiev, P., Oh, J., Horgan, D., Kroiss, M., Danihelka, I., Huang, A., Sifre, L., Cai, T., Agapiou, J. P., Jaderberg, M., Vezhnevets, A. S., Leblond, R., Pohlen, T., Dalibard, V., Budden, D., Sulsky, Y., Molloy, J., Paine, T. L., G¨ ulc ¸ehre, C ¸ ., Wang, Z., Pfaff, T., Wu, Y., Ring, R., Yogatama, D., W¨ unsch, D., McKinney, K., Smith, O., Schaul, T., Lillicrap, T. P., Kavukcuoglu, K., Hassabis, D., Apps, C., and Silver, D. (2019). Grandmaster level in starcraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nat. , 575(7782):350-354.
  71. Wang, R., Lehman, J., Clune, J., and Stanley, K. O. (2019). Paired open-ended trailblazer (POET): endlessly generating increasingly complex and diverse learning environments and their solutions. CoRR , abs/1901.01753. · arXiv
  72. Wang, R., Lehman, J., Rawal, A., Zhi, J., Li, Y., Clune, J., and Stanley, K. (2020). Enhanced POET: Open-ended reinforcement learning through unbounded invention of learning challenges and their solutions. In III, H. D. and Singh, A., editors, Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 9940-9951. PMLR.
  73. Zhang, A., Ballas, N., and Pineau, J. (2018a). A dissection of overfitting and generalization in continuous reinforcement learning. CoRR , abs/1806.07937. · arXiv
  74. Zhang, C., Vinyals, O., Munos, R., and Bengio, S. (2018b). A study on overfitting in deep reinforcement learning. CoRR , abs/1804.06893. · arXiv
  75. Zhang, H., Chen, Y., and Parkes, D. (2009). A general approach to environment design with one agent. In Proceedings of the 21st International Jont Conference on Artifical Intelligence , IJCAI'09, page 2002-2008.
  76. Zhang, H. and Parkes, D. (2008). Value-based policy teaching with active indirect elicitation. In Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Volume 1 , AAAI'08, page 208-214. AAAI Press.
  77. Zhang, Y., Abbeel, P., and Pinto, L. (2020). Automatic curriculum learning through value disagreement. In Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M. F., and Lin, H., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 7648-7659. Curran Associates, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parker-Holder, J., Jiang, M., Dennis, M., Samvelyan, M., Foerster, J., Grefenstette, E., & Rocktäschel, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Berkeley College (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2203.01302
arXiv
2203.01302
OpenAlex
W4226197112
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
curriculum learning, level design, open-ended learning, environmental complexity

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