A Search-Based Testing Approach for Deep Reinforcement Learning Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithms have been increasingly employed during the last decade to solve various decision-making problems such as autonomous driving, trading decisions, and robotics. However, these algorithms have faced great challenges when deployed in safety-critical environments since they often exhibit erroneous behaviors that can lead to potentially critical errors. One of the ways to assess the safety of DRL agents is to test them to detect possible faults leading to critical failures during their execution. This raises the question of how we can efficiently test DRL policies to ensure their correctness and adherence to safety requirements. Most existing works on testing DRL agents use adversarial attacks that perturb states or actions of the agent. However, such attacks often lead to unrealistic states of the environment. Furthermore, their main goal is to test the robustness of DRL agents rather than testing the compliance of the agents' policies with respect to requirements. Due to the huge state space of DRL environments, the high cost of test execution, and the black-box nature of DRL algorithms, exhaustive testing of DRL agents is impossible. In this paper, we propose a Search-based Testing Approach of Reinforcement Learning Agents (STARLA) to test the policy of a DRL agent by effectively searching for failing executions of the agent within a limited testing budget. We rely on machine learning models and a dedicated genetic algorithm to narrow the search toward faulty episodes (i.e., sequences of states and actions produced by the DRL agent). We apply STARLA on Deep-Q-Learning agents trained on two different RL problems widely used as benchmarks and show that STARLA significantly outperforms Random Testing by detecting more faults related to the agent's policy. We also investigate how to extract rules that characterize faulty episodes of the DRL agent using our search results. Such rules can be used to understand the conditions under which the agent fails and thus assess the risks of deploying it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".