Yash Chandak, Philip Thomas, Scott Jordan, Daniel Cohen, Mengxue Zhang
We have not lifted any functions out of this paper's repositories yet, so there is nothing we have run. If it links a repository, it is listed below.
Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.
Performance evaluations are critical for quantifying algorithmic advances in reinforcement learning. Recent reproducibility analyses have shown that reported performance results are often inconsistent and difficult to replicate. In this work, we argue that the inconsistency of performance stems from the use of flawed evaluation metrics. Taking a step towards ensuring that reported results are consistent, we propose a new comprehensive evaluation methodology for reinforcement learning algorithms that produces reliable measurements of performance both on a single environment and when aggregated across environments. We demonstrate this method by evaluating a broad class of reinforcement learning algorithms on standard benchmark tasks.
The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:
get_harvested_code_for_paper("2006.16958")
get_code_for_paper("2006.16958")
have("2006.16958")
Connect an agent — have() is free.