Reference library
When Does Neuroevolution Outcompete Reinforcement Learning in Transfer Learning Tasks?
Paper summary
Compares NEAT, HyperNEAT, CMA-ES, a simple MAP-Elites variant, PPO and goal-conditioned PPO in logic-circuit curricula and robotic tasks. Direct encodings perform better in the tested transfer curricula, while HyperNEAT can escape a simple deceptive maze. Larger robotic morphology removes several apparent advantages. Diversity coverage alone need not retain the ordered behavior a changed task requires.
Relevance to the project
Assistant interpretation: builder changes should be evaluated for retained prior behavior and useful transfer, separately from diversity and immediate offspring validity. This informs the open genotype/reset and crossover comparison questions; it does not select an encoding, curriculum, reward or operator.
Ten trials per condition; unequal tuning choices and narrow algorithm variants limit broad rankings. This is a curriculum/representation comparison, not a crossover ablation or online-plasticity test. No universal direct-encoding advantage is established.
Source record
- Reference ID
- arxiv-2505-22696
- Archived version
- arXiv 2505.22696v1; version-specific PDF URL; intended title/authors checked in first page
- Summary provenance
- reference-library/papers/arxiv-2505-22696/metadata.json · summary
- Review status
- targeted full-text methods/results reading; not an exhaustive critical review
- Reading scope
- Identity and abstract; extracted PDF pp.1–8 covering background, benchmark definitions, methods/tuning, results, negative transfer/morphology results and discussion. Cross-checked primary HTML for bibliographic identity and methods. Figures through captions/text only; appendix hyperparameters pp.10–11, raw trajectories/code, full compute accounting and reference list not critically audited. No reproduction.