atlas

Research map / Reinforcement learning / Visual and representation RL

Hard Tasks First: Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning Through Task Scheduling

ICML 2024 · Reinforcement learning › Visual and representation RL · approach: In-context and adaptive RL

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes Scheduled Multi-Task Training (SMT), which schedules the hardest Meta-World tasks first using an SAC-based evaluation metric, with periodic network resets and budget-based stages to counter simplicity bias.

Problem

Multi-task RL with tasks of varying difficulty suffers negative transfer and simplicity bias, where easy tasks dominate gradient updates and hard tasks go unlearned.

Approach

Dynamically prioritize the K hardest tasks (ranked by a probabilistic-inference evaluation metric of return minus log-policy) in a training pool, periodically reset policy and Q networks while keeping replay buffers, and use a two-stage budget to revisit unsolvable tasks.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
prioritize difficult tasks using complexity-based schedulingSMT · Meta-World MT10average success ratio (%): 82.4 ± 14.2 -> 86.8 ± 8.6Helped
prioritize difficult tasks using complexity-based schedulingSMT · Meta-World MT50 bottom-20average success ratio (%): 4.6 ± 8.2 -> 8.0 ± 8.9Helped
prioritize difficult tasks using complexity-based schedulingSMT · Meta-World MT50 bottom-30average success ratio (%): 26.1 ± 15.0 -> 26.8 ± 13.1Helped
prioritize difficult tasks using complexity-based schedulingSMT · Meta-World MT50 bottom-40average success ratio (%): 44.6 ± 11.2 -> 45.0 ± 9.9Helped
prioritize difficult tasks using complexity-based schedulingSMT · Meta-World MT50 bottom-50average success ratio (%): 55.6 ± 9.1 -> 56.0 ± 8.0Helped
set κ to 0.7 (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8 ±8.6 -> 79.8±15.5Hurt
set κ to 0.9 (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8 ±8.6 -> 85.3±9.8No clear effect
set M to 2000 (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8 ±8.6 -> 59.1±23.6Hurt
set M to 3000 (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8 ±8.6 -> 74.4±12.7Hurt
remove the reset mechanism (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8 ±8.6 -> 70.7 ±17.4Hurt
schedule easy tasks first (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8±8.6 -> 62.7±17.4Hurt
select tasks randomly (ablation)SMT · Meta-World MT10 Caverage success ratio (%): 86.8±8.6 -> 62.6±21.3Hurt

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: Meta-World MT10 Meta-World MT50

Benchmarks: Meta-World MT10 Meta-World MT50

Metrics: average success ratio (%) average bottom-k success ratio

Baselines: SAC-MT SAC-MT-MH SAC-soft-modular PCGrad PaCo

Builds on: SAC VariBAD Resetting deep RL (Nikishin et al., 2022) PCGrad

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy