Paper detail

Evaluating Generalisation in General Video Game Playing

The General Video Game Artificial Intelligence (GVGAI) competition has been running for several years with various tracks. This paper focuses on the challenge of the GVGAI learning track in which 3 games are selected and 2 levels are given for training, while 3 hidden levels are left for evaluation. This setup poses a difficult challenge for current Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms, as they typically require much more data. This work investigates 3 versions of the Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C) algorithm trained on a maximum of 2 levels from the available 5 from the GVGAI framework and compares their performance on all levels. The selected sub-set of games have different characteristics, like stochasticity, reward distribution and objectives. We found that stochasticity improves the generalisation, but too much can cause the algorithms to fail to learn the training levels. The quality of the training levels also matters, different sets of training levels can boost generalisation over all levels. In the GVGAI competition agents are scored based on their win rates and then their scores achieved in the games. We found that solely using the rewards provided by the game might not encourage winning.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.