One of the open challenges in Reinforcement Learning is the hard exploration problem in sparse reward environments. Various types of intrinsic rewards have been proposed to address this challenge by pushing towards diversity. This diversity might be imposed at different levels, favouring the agent to explore different states, policies or behaviours (State, Policy and Skill level diversity, respectively). However, the impact of diversity on the agent's behaviour remains unclear. In this work, we aim to fill this gap by studying the effect of different levels of diversity imposed by intrinsic rewards on the exploration patterns of RL agents. We select four intrinsic rewards (State Count, Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM), Maximum Entropy, and Diversity is all you need (DIAYN)), each pushing for a different diversity level. We conduct an empirical study on MiniGrid environment to compare their impact on exploration considering various metrics related to the agent's exploration, namely: episodic return, observation coverage, agent's position coverage, policy entropy, and timeframes to reach the sparse reward. The main outcome of the study is that State Count leads to the best exploration performance in the case of low-dimensional observations. However, in the case of RGB observations, the performance of State Count is highly degraded mostly due to representation learning challenges. Conversely, Maximum Entropy is less impacted, resulting in a more robust exploration, despite being not always optimal. Lastly, our empirical study revealed that learning diverse skills with DIAYN, often linked to improved robustness and generalisation, does not promote exploration in MiniGrid environments. This is because: i) learning the skill space itself can be challenging, and ii) exploration within the skill space prioritises differentiating between behaviours rather than achieving uniform state visitation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) possess extensive knowledge and exhibit promising reasoning abilities; however, they still struggle to perform well in complex, dynamic environments. Real-world tasks require handling intricate interactions, advanced spatial reasoning, long-term planning, and continuous exploration of new strategies-areas in which we lack effective methodologies for comprehensively evaluating these capabilities. To address this gap, we introduce BALROG, a novel benchmark designed to assess the agentic capabilities of LLMs and VLMs through a diverse set of challenging games. Our benchmark incorporates a range of existing reinforcement learning environments with varying levels of difficulty, including tasks that are solvable by non-expert humans in seconds to extremely challenging ones that may take years to master (e.g., the NetHack Learning Environment). We devise fine-grained metrics to measure performance and conduct an extensive evaluation of several popular open-source and closed-source LLMs and VLMs. Our findings indicate that while current models achieve partial success in the easier games, they struggle significantly with more challenging tasks. Notably, we observe severe deficiencies in vision-based decision-making, as models perform worse when visual representations of the environments are provided. We release BALROG as an open and user-friendly benchmark to facilitate future research and development in the agentic community.

The Credit Assignment Problem (CAP) refers to the longstanding challenge of Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents to associate actions with their long-term consequences. Solving the CAP is a crucial step towards the successful deployment of RL in the real world since most decision problems provide feedback that is noisy, delayed, and with little or no information about the causes. These conditions make it hard to distinguish serendipitous outcomes from those caused by informed decision-making. However, the mathematical nature of credit and the CAP remains poorly understood and defined. In this survey, we review the state of the art of Temporal Credit Assignment (CA) in deep RL. We propose a unifying formalism for credit that enables equitable comparisons of state of the art algorithms and improves our understanding of the trade-offs between the various methods. We cast the CAP as the problem of learning the influence of an action over an outcome from a finite amount of experience. We discuss the challenges posed by delayed effects, transpositions, and a lack of action influence, and analyse how existing methods aim to address them. Finally, we survey the protocols to evaluate a credit assignment method, and suggest ways to diagnoses the sources of struggle for different credit assignment methods. Overall, this survey provides an overview of the field for new-entry practitioners and researchers, it offers a coherent perspective for scholars looking to expedite the starting stages of a new study on the CAP, and it suggests potential directions for future research

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is characterized by disorganised electrical activity in the atria and is known to be sustained by the presence of regions of fibrosis (scars) or functional cellular remodeling, both of which may lead to areas of slow conduction. Estimating the effective conductivity of the myocardium and identifying regions of abnormal propagation is therefore crucial for the effective treatment of AF. We hypothesise that the spatial distribution of tissue conductivity can be directly inferred from an array of concurrently acquired contact electrograms (EGMs). We generate a dataset of simulated cardiac AP propagation using randomised scar distributions and a phenomenological cardiac model and calculate contact EGMs at various positions on the field. EGMs are enriched with noise extracted from biological data acquired in the lab. A deep neural network, based on a modified U-net architecture, is trained to estimate the location of the scar and quantify conductivity of the tissue with a Jaccard index of 91%. We adapt a wavelet-based surrogate testing analysis to confirm that the inferred conductivity distribution is an accurate representation of the ground truth input to the model. We find that the root mean square error (RMSE) between the ground truth and our predictions is significantly smaller ($p_{val}<0.01$) than the RMSE between the ground truth and surrogate samples.