Is Exploration or Optimization the Problem for Deep Reinforcement Learning?

Glen Berseth
8/2/2025
cs.LGcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 4 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

In the era of deep reinforcement learning, making progress is more complex, as the collected experience must be compressed into a deep model for future exploitation and sampling. Many papers have shown that training a deep learning policy under the changing state and action distribution leads to sub-optimal performance, or even collapse. This naturally leads to the concern that even if the community creates improved exploration algorithms or reward objectives, will those improvements fall on the \textit{deaf ears} of optimization difficulties. This work proposes a new \textit{practical} sub-optimality estimator to determine optimization limitations of deep reinforcement learning algorithms. Through experiments across environments and RL algorithms, it is shown that the difference between the best experience generated is 2-3$\times$ better than the policies' learned performance. This large difference indicates that deep RL methods only exploit half of the good experience they generate.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 4 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{berseth2025exploration,
  title  = {Is Exploration or Optimization the Problem for Deep Reinforcement Learning?},
  author = {Glen Berseth},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2508.01329},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01329v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2508.01329.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2508.01329)

Discussion