What makes humans so good at solving seemingly complex video games? Unlike computers, humans bring in a great deal of prior knowledge about the world, enabling efficient decision making. This paper investigates the role of human priors for solving video games. Given a sample game, we conduct a series of ablation studies to quantify the importance of various priors on human performance. We do this by modifying the video game environment to systematically mask different types of visual information that could be used by humans as priors. We find that removal of some prior knowledge causes a drastic degradation in the speed with which human players solve the game, e.g. from 2 minutes to over 20 minutes. Furthermore, our results indicate that general priors, such as the importance of objects and visual consistency, are critical for efficient game-play. Videos and the game manipulations are available at https://rach0012.github.io/humanRL_website/

Deep reinforcement learning has achieved many recent successes, but our understanding of its strengths and limitations is hampered by the lack of rich environments in which we can fully characterize optimal behavior, and correspondingly diagnose individual actions against such a characterization. Here we consider a family of combinatorial games, arising from work of Erdos, Selfridge, and Spencer, and we propose their use as environments for evaluating and comparing different approaches to reinforcement learning. These games have a number of appealing features: they are challenging for current learning approaches, but they form (i) a low-dimensional, simply parametrized environment where (ii) there is a linear closed form solution for optimal behavior from any state, and (iii) the difficulty of the game can be tuned by changing environment parameters in an interpretable way. We use these Erdos-Selfridge-Spencer games not only to compare different algorithms, but test for generalization, make comparisons to supervised learning, analyse multiagent play, and even develop a self play algorithm.

In continuous action domains, standard deep reinforcement learning algorithms like DDPG suffer from inefficient exploration when facing sparse or deceptive reward problems. Conversely, evolutionary and developmental methods focusingon exploration like Novelty Search, Quality-Diversity or Goal Exploration Processes explore more robustly but are less efficient at fine-tuning policies using gradient-descent. In this paper, we present the GEP-PG approach, taking the best of both worlds by sequentially combining a Goal Exploration Process and two variants of DDPG . We study the learning performance of these components and their combination on a low dimensional deceptive reward problem and on the larger Half-Cheetah benchmark. We show that DDPG fails on the former and that GEP-PG improves over the best DDPG variant in both environments.

In reinforcement learning, it is common to let an agent interact for a fixed amount of time with its environment before resetting it and repeating the process in a series of episodes. The task that the agent has to learn can either be to maximize its performance over (i) that fixed period, or (ii) an indefinite period where time limits are only used during training to diversify experience. In this paper, we provide a formal account for how time limits could effectively be handled in each of the two cases and explain why not doing so can cause state-aliasing and invalidation of experience replay, leading to suboptimal policies and training instability. In case (i), we argue that the terminations due to time limits are in fact part of the environment, and thus a notion of the remaining time should be included as part of the agent's input to avoid violation of the Markov property. In case (ii), the time limits are not part of the environment and are only used to facilitate learning. We argue that this insight should be incorporated by bootstrapping from the value of the state at the end of each partial episode. For both cases, we illustrate empirically the significance of our considerations in improving the performance and stability of existing reinforcement learning algorithms, showing state-of-the-art results on several control tasks.

While deep reinforcement learning (deep RL) agents are effective at maximizing rewards, it is often unclear what strategies they use to do so. In this paper, we take a step toward explaining deep RL agents through a case study using Atari 2600 environments. In particular, we focus on using saliency maps to understand how an agent learns and executes a policy. We introduce a method for generating useful saliency maps and use it to show 1) what strong agents attend to, 2) whether agents are making decisions for the right or wrong reasons, and 3) how agents evolve during learning. We also test our method on non-expert human subjects and find that it improves their ability to reason about these agents. Overall, our results show that saliency information can provide significant insight into an RL agent's decisions and learning behavior.