Daily Papers

Humans possess the ability to draw on past experiences explicitly when learning new tasks and applying them accordingly. We believe this capacity for self-referencing is especially advantageous for reinforcement learning agents in the unsupervised pretrain-then-finetune setting. During pretraining, an agent's past experiences can be explicitly utilized to mitigate the nonstationarity of intrinsic rewards. In the finetuning phase, referencing historical trajectories prevents the unlearning of valuable exploratory behaviors. Motivated by these benefits, we propose the Self-Reference (SR) approach, an add-on module explicitly designed to leverage historical information and enhance agent performance within the pretrain-finetune paradigm. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results in terms of Interquartile Mean (IQM) performance and Optimality Gap reduction on the Unsupervised Reinforcement Learning Benchmark for model-free methods, recording an 86% IQM and a 16% Optimality Gap. Additionally, it improves current algorithms by up to 17% IQM and reduces the Optimality Gap by 31%. Beyond performance enhancement, the Self-Reference add-on also increases sample efficiency, a crucial attribute for real-world applications.

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.

Vibration-based condition monitoring systems are receiving increasing attention due to their ability to accurately identify different conditions by capturing dynamic features over a broad frequency range. However, there is little research on clustering approaches in vibration data and the resulting solutions are often optimized for a single data set. In this work, we present an extensive comparison of the clustering algorithms K-means clustering, OPTICS, and Gaussian mixture model clustering (GMM) applied to statistical features extracted from the time and frequency domains of vibration data sets. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of feature combinations, feature selection using principal component analysis (PCA), and the specified number of clusters on the performance of the clustering algorithms. We conducted this comparison in terms of a grid search using three different benchmark data sets. Our work showed that averaging (Mean, Median) and variance-based features (Standard Deviation, Interquartile Range) performed significantly better than shape-based features (Skewness, Kurtosis). In addition, K-means outperformed GMM slightly for these data sets, whereas OPTICS performed significantly worse. We were also able to show that feature combinations as well as PCA feature selection did not result in any significant performance improvements. With an increase in the specified number of clusters, clustering algorithms performed better, although there were some specific algorithmic restrictions.