Rethinking the Suitability of Reinforcement Learning Algorithms Under Practical Transfer Constraints
Authors: Hany Hamed, Abhishek Naik, Colin Bellinger, A. Rupam Mahmood
Organizations: University of Alberta · 3Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii) · 7Generative Bionics · 4National Research Council Canada · University of Ottawa · 5Vector Institute · 6CIFAR Canada AI Chair
Abstract
Transfer-oriented reinforcement learning requires evaluating algorithms along dimensions that go beyond standard sample efficiency. We focus on two dimensions: practical efficiency, which asks whether conclusions about algorithm suitability change under wall-clock rather than interaction-based budgets, and robustness under dynamics mismatch, which asks how different learning paradigms respond to variability in the training distribution induced by domain randomization. We provide two insights to reinforcement-learning practitioners. First, comparing the sample efficiency of different algorithms is often an insufficient criterion in transfer-oriented settings. The wall-clock time required to train a decent policy is an important consideration for practitioners, and we find that the sample-inefficient PPO algorithm can produce a performant policy faster than relatively more sample-efficient algorithms such as SAC and TD-MPC2, validating the common understanding of massively parallel training paradigms. Second, domain randomization can help different kinds of algorithms learn robust policies. In particular, although PPO, SAC, and TD-MPC2 represent different RL paradigms - on-policy, off-policy, and model-based learning and planning, respectively - we find that domain randomization affects all three algorithms in a similar way. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first controlled comparison of the effect of domain-randomization coverage on PPO, SAC, and TD-MPC2 under the same transfer protocol. Taken together, these two insights highlight the importance of evaluating RL algorithms not only by sample efficiency, but also by practical considerations such as training time and the algorithms' ability to produce usable policies.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has been extended from single-domain training to multi-domain reasoning suites spanning mathematics, programming, and science. However, the training curriculum (how often each domain is sampled) is typically fixed or hand-tuned, even though reasoning skills transfer unevenly across domains. Existing learnability-based curricula adapt to where the policy is currently improving, but are blind to whether a gradient step on the selected domain benefits the remaining domains. In this paper, we propose Transfer-Aware Curriculum (TAC), a bandit-style online curriculum that prioritizes domains whose updates broadly benefit the rest of the training suite. TAC repurposes signals already produced by RL training: per-domain advantages capture local learnability, and projected gradients, taken from the GRPO step being computed, estimate cross-domain transferability via gradient-geometry alignment, at negligible cost (<1% wall-clock overhead). Across a six-domain reasoning suite, TAC achieves the best macro-averaged accuracy on both Qwen3-1.7B and Llama3.2-3B, outperforming proportional random sampling, a hand-designed schedule, and a learnability-only bandit, and improving over the last of these by up to 2.8 points (10% relative). Ablations show performance degrades sharply when the transferability term is removed, and TAC remains robust on imbalanced training mixtures where learnability-only curricula over-commit to dominant domains. Our findings establish cross-domain transferability as a key signal for curriculum design in multi-domain RLVR.
Domain randomization (DR) is widely used in policy learning to improve robustness to modeling error, but remains underexplored in contact-rich sampling-based predictive control (SPC), where rollout quality is highly sensitive to uncertainty. In this work, we take the first step by studying risk-aware DR in predictive sampling on a simple yet representative Push-T task, comparing average, optimistic, and pessimistic rollout aggregations under randomized model instances. Our initial results suggest that DR affects not only robustness to model error, but also the effective cost landscape seen by the sampling-based optimizer, by reshaping the basin of attraction around contact-producing actions. This opens up potential for exploring better grounded risk-aware contact-rich SPC under model uncertainty. Video: https://youtu.be/f1F0ALXxhSM
Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms often suffer from low run-to-run robustness, manifesting as significant performance variation across independent runs of identically configured agents. Although this issue poses a spectrum of challenges across research and practice, relatively few studies develop methods to evaluate it; RL research instead often reports uncertainty in the estimated mean performance. In this paper, we outline the limitations of conventional uncertainty and variation estimates, particularly their misalignment with purpose and the risk of underreporting. We then propose an alternative percentile-based statistic and visualization method, min-max IPR and run-wise percentile highlighting, respectively. These percentile-based tools are easy to interpret and rely on standard properties of sample percentiles, providing rich information about run-to-run performance variation. We demonstrate this through three case studies. First, we show that LayerNorm and penultimate-layer normalizations narrow performance variation in PPO, whereas the variation is mostly unchanged in SAC. Second, we compare PPO, SAC, TD-MPC, and TD-MPC2, and show TD-MPC exhibits the least variation while being the most data efficient among the four. Finally, in a comparison of DQN and Rainbow on five Atari environments, we show that both algorithms exhibit similar levels of performance variation.