4.6 Article

Testing the Plasticity of Reinforcement Learning-based Systems

Publisher

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3511701

Keywords

Software testing; reinforcement learning; empirical software engineering

Funding

  1. ERC [787703]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [787703] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a method to test the plasticity of reinforcement learning-based systems. It quantifies the adaptation and anti-regression capabilities of the system by computing its adaptation frontier in a changed environment. Visualizing the results provides developers with crucial information for deciding whether to enable online learning or not.
The dataset available for pre-release training of a machine-learning based system is often not representative of all possible execution contexts that the system will encounter in the field. Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a prominent approach among those that support continual learning, i.e., learning continually in the field, in the post-release phase. No study has so far investigated any method to test the plasticity of RL-based systems, i.e., their capability to adapt to an execution context that may deviate from the training one. We propose an approach to test the plasticity of RL-based systems. The output of our approach is a quantification of the adaptation and anti-regression capabilities of the system, obtained by computing the adaptation frontier of the system in a changed environment. We visualize such frontier as an adaptation/anti-regression heatmap in two dimensions, or as a clustered projection when more than two dimensions are involved. In this way, we provide developers with information on the amount of changes that can be accommodated by the continual learning component of the system, which is key to decide if online, in-the-field learning can be safely enabled or not.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available