一句话:通过差分测试揭示主流 DRL 算法实现间存在显著不一致,且可推翻基于可互换假设的实验结论。
深度强化学习研究常默认同一算法的不同实现一致且可互换,但该假设可能影响性能比较与实验结论。本文以差分测试为视角,系统研究 DRL 实现不一致的程度、性能后果及其对既有研究结论的影响。作者在 56 个游戏上比较五种 PPO 实现,并手工分析源码、复现先前研究。结果显示实现间差异显著且不可互换:五种 PPO 中三种在 50% 试验中达超人表现,另两种不足 15%;高表现实现也在 9 个游戏中差异显著,主要源于代码级不一致。复现研究还表明该假设足以翻转实验结果。作者呼吁采用差分测试、开展可复现研究并使用大型环境套件。
Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) is a paradigm of artificial intelligence where an agent uses a neural network to learn which actions to take in a given environment. DRL has recently gained traction from being able to solve complex environments like driving simulators, 3D robotic control, and multiplayer-online-battle-arena video games. Numerous implementations of the state-of-the-art algorithms responsible for training these agents, like the Deep Q-Network (DQN) and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithms, currently exist. However, studies make the mistake of assuming implementations of the same algorithm to be consistent and thus, interchangeable. In this paper, through a differential testing lens, we present the results of studying the extent of implementation inconsistencies, their effect on the implementations' performance, as well as their impact on the conclusions of prior studies under the assumption of interchangeable implementations. The outcomes of our differential tests showed significant discrepancies between the tested algorithm implementations, indicating that they are not interchangeable. In particular, out of the five PPO implementations tested on 56 games, three implementations achieved superhuman performance for 50% of their total trials while the other two implementations only achieved superhuman performance for less than 15% of their total trials. Furthermore, the performance among the high-performing PPO implementations was found to differ significantly in nine games. As part of a meticulous manual analysis of the implementations' source code, we analyzed implementation discrepancies and determined that code-level inconsistencies primarily caused these discrepancies. Lastly, we replicated a study and showed that this assumption of implementation interchangeability was sufficient to flip experiment outcomes. Therefore, this calls for a shift in how implementations are being used. In addition, we recommend for (1) replicability studies for studies mistakenly assuming implementation interchangeability, (2) DRL researchers and practitioners to adopt the differential testing methodology proposed in this paper to combat implementation inconsistencies, and (3) the use of large environment suites.
@inproceedings{paperbot8768,
title = {On the Mistaken Assumption of Interchangeable Deep Reinforcement Learning Implementations},
author = {Rajdeep Singh Hundal and Yan Xiao and Xiaochun Cao and Jin Song Dong and Manuel Rigger},
booktitle = {ICSE},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1109/icse55347.2025.00222}
}