In recent years, significant progress has been made in solving challenging problems across various domains using deep reinforcement learning (RL). Reproducing existing work and accurately judging the improvements offered by novel methods is vital to sustaining this progress. Unfortunately, reproducing results for state-of-the-art deep RL methods is seldom straightforward. In particular, non-determinism in standard benchmark environments, combined with variance intrinsic to the methods, can make reported results tough to interpret. Without significance metrics and tighter standardization of experimental reporting, it is difficult to determine whether improvements over the prior state-of-the-art are meaningful. In this paper, we investigate challenges posed by reproducibility, proper experimental techniques, and reporting procedures. We illustrate the variability in reported metrics and results when comparing against common baselines and suggest guidelines to make future results in deep RL more reproducible. We aim to spur discussion about how to ensure continued progress in the field by minimizing wasted effort stemming from results that are non-reproducible and easily misinterpreted.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in solving challenging problems across various domains using deep reinforcement learning (RL). Reproducing existing work and accurately judging the improvements offered by novel methods is vital to sustaining this progress. Unfortunately, reproducing results for state-of-the-art deep RL methods is seldom straightforward. In particular, non-determinism in standard benchmark environments, combined with variance intrinsic to the methods, can make reported results tough to interpret. Without significance metrics and tighter standardization of experimental reporting, it is difficult to determine whether improvements over the prior state-of-the-art are meaningful. In this paper, we investigate challenges posed by reproducibility, proper experimental techniques, and reporting procedures. We illustrate the variability in reported metrics and results when comparing against common baselines and suggest guidelines to make future results in deep RL more reproducible. We aim to spur discussion about how to ensure continued progress in the field by minimizing wasted effort stemming from results that are non-reproducible and easily misinterpreted.

We investigate the use of alternative divergences to Kullback-Leibler (KL) in variational inference(VI), based on the Variational Dropout \cite{kingma2015}. Stochastic gradient variational Bayes (SGVB) \cite{aevb} is a general framework for estimating the evidence lower bound (ELBO) in Variational Bayes. In this work, we extend the SGVB estimator with using Alpha-Divergences, which are alternative to divergences to VI' KL objective. The Gaussian dropout can be seen as a local reparametrization trick of the SGVB objective. We extend the Variational Dropout to use alpha divergences for variational inference. Our results compare $\alpha$-divergence variational dropout with standard variational dropout with correlated and uncorrelated weight noise. We show that the $\alpha$-divergence with $\alpha \rightarrow 1$ (or KL divergence) is still a good measure for use in variational inference, in spite of the efficient use of Alpha-divergences for Dropout VI \cite{Li17}. $\alpha \rightarrow 1$ can yield the lowest training error, and optimizes a good lower bound for the evidence lower bound (ELBO) among all values of the parameter $\alpha \in [0,\infty)$.

We propose Bayesian hypernetworks: a framework for approximate Bayesian inference in neural networks. A Bayesian hypernetwork, $h$, is a neural network which learns to transform a simple noise distribution, $p(\epsilon) = \mathcal{N}(0,I)$, to a distribution $q(\theta) \doteq q(h(\epsilon))$ over the parameters $\theta$ of another neural network (the "primary network"). We train $q$ with variational inference, using an invertible $h$ to enable efficient estimation of the variational lower bound on the posterior $p(\theta | \mathcal{D})$ via sampling. In contrast to most methods for Bayesian deep learning, Bayesian hypernets can represent a complex multimodal approximate posterior with correlations between parameters, while enabling cheap i.i.d. sampling of $q(\theta)$. We demonstrate these qualitative advantages of Bayesian hypernets, which also achieve competitive performance on a suite of tasks that demonstrate the advantage of estimating model uncertainty, including active learning and anomaly detection.

Even though active learning forms an important pillar of machine learning, deep learning tools are not prevalent within it. Deep learning poses several difficulties when used in an active learning setting. First, active learning (AL) methods generally rely on being able to learn and update models from small amounts of data. Recent advances in deep learning, on the other hand, are notorious for their dependence on large amounts of data. Second, many AL acquisition functions rely on model uncertainty, yet deep learning methods rarely represent such model uncertainty. In this paper we combine recent advances in Bayesian deep learning into the active learning framework in a practical way. We develop an active learning framework for high dimensional data, a task which has been extremely challenging so far, with very sparse existing literature. Taking advantage of specialised models such as Bayesian convolutional neural networks, we demonstrate our active learning techniques with image data, obtaining a significant improvement on existing active learning approaches. We demonstrate this on both the MNIST dataset, as well as for skin cancer diagnosis from lesion images (ISIC2016 task).