Evolving Curricula with Regret-Based Environment Design
About
It remains a significant challenge to train generally capable agents with reinforcement learning (RL). A promising avenue for improving the robustness of RL agents is through the use of curricula. One such class of methods frames environment design as a game between a student and a teacher, using regret-based objectives to produce environment instantiations (or levels) at the frontier of the student agent's capabilities. These methods benefit from their generality, with theoretical guarantees at equilibrium, yet they often struggle to find effective levels in challenging design spaces. By contrast, evolutionary approaches seek to incrementally alter environment complexity, resulting in potentially open-ended learning, but often rely on domain-specific heuristics and vast amounts of computational resources. In this paper we propose to harness the power of evolution in a principled, regret-based curriculum. Our approach, which we call Adversarially Compounding Complexity by Editing Levels (ACCEL), seeks to constantly produce levels at the frontier of an agent's capabilities, resulting in curricula that start simple but become increasingly complex. ACCEL maintains the theoretical benefits of prior regret-based methods, while providing significant empirical gains in a diverse set of environments. An interactive version of the paper is available at accelagent.github.io.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Navigation | MiniWorld FourRooms | Success Rate51 | 15 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid 16Rooms | Solved Rate97 | 6 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid Maze | Solved Rate82 | 6 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid Maze2 | Solved Rate97 | 6 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid Labyrinth | Solved Rate96 | 6 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid Labyrinth2 | Solved Rate73 | 6 | |
| Partially observable navigation | Minigrid PerfectMaze (M) | Solved Rate64 | 6 | |
| 2D bipedal locomotion | Hardcore (OpenAI Gym) (test) | Average Return53.1 | 6 | |
| 2D bipedal locomotion | Stairs (test) | Average Return33.6 | 6 | |
| 2D bipedal locomotion | PitGap (test) | Average Return29.6 | 6 |