PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

The Curse of Diversity in Ensemble-Based Exploration

Zhixuan Lin, Pierluca D'Oro, Evgenii Nikishin, Aaron Courville

reinforcement learningdeep reinforcement learningensemble-based explorationoff-policy learningrepresentation learningauxiliary tasks
83.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
77.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
87.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We show that the off-policy learning challenge in ensemble-based exploration in deep RL can impair performance, provide extensive analysis, and show representation learning as a promising solution with a novel method CERL.

Abstract

We uncover a surprising phenomenon in deep reinforcement learning: training a diverse ensemble of data-sharing agents -- a well-established exploration strategy -- can significantly impair the performance of the individual ensemble members when compared to standard single-agent training. Through careful analysis, we attribute the degradation in performance to the low proportion of self-generated data in the shared training data for each ensemble member, as well as the inefficiency of the individual ensemble members to learn from such highly off-policy data. We thus name this phenomenon *the curse of diversity*. We find that several intuitive solutions -- such as a larger replay buffer or a smaller ensemble size -- either fail to consistently mitigate the performance loss or undermine the advantages of ensembling. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of representation learning to counteract the curse of diversity with a novel method named Cross-Ensemble Representation Learning (CERL) in both discrete and continuous control domains. Our work offers valuable insights into an unexpected pitfall in ensemble-based exploration and raises important caveats for future applications of similar approaches.

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)