The paper investigates continual reinforcement learning using neuroevolution, comparing evolution strategies (ES) and genetic algorithms (GAs) across diverse environments and network sizes. ES consistently achieves a better balance between stability and plasticity, while GAs are more plastic but forget more. The authors attribute this to ES finding wider neighborhoods in weight space, with overlap between consecutive tasks correlating with the stability-plasticity trade‑off, and note that common RL plasticity issues do not transfer to neuroevolution.
By Eleni Nisioti, Andrea Cossu, Kathrin Korte, Sebastian Risi
arXiv:2507.11482v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Artificial learning systems are graduating from passive learners to increasingly autonomous agents, lending pragmatic urgency to the question of wh...
By Mani Hamidi, Terrence W. Deacon
arXiv:2608. 05111v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In partially observable reinforcement learning, agents face a dual bottleneck: they must explore to encounter rewarding states and retain that experience in memory to optimize their policies.
By Jai Malegaonkar, Rohan Patil, Henrik I. Christensen
arXiv:2602. 05459v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Offline goal-conditioned reinforcement learning (GCRL) is typically benchmarked by the best tuned success rate of each method.
By Jan Malte T\"opperwien, Aditya Mohan, Marius Lindauer
The paper introduces Feedback‑Enriched Environments (FEEs) as a new approach to training large language models as autonomous agents for long‑horizon tasks. By shifting from action guidance to observation enrichment during later stages of exploration, FEEs improve performance across SciWorld and BFCL benchmarks with various Qwen3 model scales and RL algorithms. The study shows that FEEs stabilize training, promote proactive exploration, embed environmental guidance into policy weights, and highlight intra‑group feedback consistency as key for stable optimization.
By Hongbang Yuan, Zhuoran Jin, Yixin Cao
The paper introduces Reinforcement Learning with Decomposed Subtasks (RLDS), a method that splits trajectory rewards into per‑subtask shares before policy updates, replacing the scalar advantage used in Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). RLDS employs Subtask‑Decomposed Advantage Estimation (SDAE) to compute group‑relative advantages and distribute credit to tokens based on subtask importance, focusing on steps where a reflection marks a subtask as consequential. Experiments on four benchmarks—FrozenLake, HotpotQA, ScienceWorld, and DeepResearch—show that RLDS improves performance on high‑heterogeneity tasks (ScienceWorld and FrozenLake) and is more compute‑efficient than scalar GRPO for long rollouts.
By Mattie Terzolo, Mikolaj Sacha, Ayan Sinha, Andrew Rabinovich