  Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by
comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published
results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance
such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical
uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning
with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards
computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only
a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in
point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few
run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the
risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a
case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies
between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough
statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in
reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval
estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account
for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient
aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small
uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance
evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including
the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies
in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate
performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation
methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent
unreliable results from stagnating the field.
