text: Deep reinforcement-learning methods have achieved remarkable performance on challenging control tasks. Observations of the resulting behavior give the impression that the agent has constructed a generalized representation that supports insightful action decisions. We re-examine what is meant by generalization in RL, and propose several definitions based on an agent's performance in on-policy, off-policy, and unreachable states. We propose a set of practical methods for evaluating agents with these definitions of generalization. We demonstrate these techniques on a common benchmark task for deep RL, and we show that the learned networks make poor decisions for states that differ only slightly from on-policy states, even though those states are not selected adversarially. Taken together, these results call into question the extent to which deep Q-networks learn generalized representations, and suggest that more experimentation and analysis is necessary before claims of representation learning can be supported.
  @cite_7: Pseudo-random number generation on the Atari 2600 was commonly accomplished using a Linear Feedback Shift Register (LFSR). One drawback was that the initial seed for the LFSR had to be hard-coded into the ROM. To overcome this constraint, programmers sampled from the LFSR once per frame, including title and end screens. Since a human player will have some random amount of delay between seeing the title screen and starting to play, the LFSR state was effectively randomized at the beginning of the game despite the hard-coded seed. Other games used the player’s actions as a source of randomness. Notable pseudo-random games include Adventure in which a bat randomly steals and hides items around the game world and River Raid which used randomness to make enemy movements less predictable. Relying on the player to provide a source of randomness is not sufficient for computer controlled agents which are capable of memorizing and repeating pre-determined sequences of actions. Ideally, the games themselves would provide stochasticity generated from an external source such as the CPU clock. In practice, this was not an option presented by the hardware. Atari games are deterministic given a fixed policy leading to a set sequence of actions. This article discusses different approaches for adding stochasticity to Atari games and examines how effective each approach is at derailing an agent known to memorize action sequences. Additionally it is the authors’ hope that this article will spark discussion in the community over the following questions:
  @cite_8: 
  @cite_6: 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.
  @cite_2: Recent years have witnessed significant progresses in deep Reinforcement Learning (RL). Empowered with large scale neural networks, carefully designed architectures, novel training algorithms and massively parallel computing devices, researchers are able to attack many challenging RL problems. However, in machine learning, more training power comes with a potential risk of more overfitting. As deep RL techniques are being applied to critical problems such as healthcare and finance, it is important to understand the generalization behaviors of the trained agents. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study of standard RL agents and find that they could overfit in various ways. Moreover, overfitting could happen "robustly": commonly used techniques in RL that add stochasticity do not necessarily prevent or detect overfitting. In particular, the same agents and learning algorithms could have drastically different test performance, even when all of them achieve optimal rewards during training. The observations call for more principled and careful evaluation protocols in RL. We conclude with a general discussion on overfitting in RL and a study of the generalization behaviors from the perspective of inductive bias.
  @cite_11: We present the first massively distributed architecture for deep reinforcement learning. This architecture uses four main components: parallel actors that generate new behaviour; parallel learners that are trained from stored experience; a distributed neural network to represent the value function or behaviour policy; and a distributed store of experience. We used our architecture to implement the Deep Q-Network algorithm (DQN). Our distributed algorithm was applied to 49 games from Atari 2600 games from the Arcade Learning Environment, using identical hyperparameters. Our performance surpassed non-distributed DQN in 41 of the 49 games and also reduced the wall-time required to achieve these results by an order of magnitude on most games.
summary: Generalization has been cast as avoiding overfitting to a particular training environment, implying that sampling from diverse environments is necessary for generalization @cite_8 @cite_2 . Other work has focused on generalization as improved performance in off-policy states, a framework much closer to standard approaches in supervised learning. Techniques such as adding stochasticity to the policy @cite_7 , having the agent take random steps, no-ops, steps from human play @cite_11 , or probabilistically repeating the agent's previous action @cite_6 , all force the agent to transition to off-policy states.