aiqbench analysis
This paper redefines how generalization gaps are measured in reinforcement learning by introducing the "random floor"—the return of a uniform-random policy—as a necessary baseline for evaluating true learning transfer. The authors demonstrate that standard evaluation practices often obscure convergence issues, particularly when test-time action sampling rules differ between training and held-out levels. By auditing prior codebases, they reveal widespread inconsistencies in reporting protocols that can artificially inflate or deflate perceived model performance.
What Does a ProcGen Generalization Gap Measure? Action Rules, Convergence, and the Missing Random Floor
arXiv:2609.32532v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A generalization gap in reinforcement learning (return on training levels minus return on held-out levels) is usually reported without a reference point. We argue that the missing reference is a measured random floor: the return of a uniform-random policy on the same levels under the same harness. On ProcGen, the floor changes what several standard numbers mean. On identical checkpoints and levels across eight environments, switching between sampled and greedy (argmax) test-time actions moves held-out return in both directions, and greedy evaluation takes three environments to or below the floor: in miner, the sampled policy scores 4.9x the floor on held-out levels while its argmax scores below it. Raw policy entropy places seven of eight environments short of convergence, but 35-65% of that entropy is spread across actions with identical effects; after merging them, one to three remain short, and against the floor only heist has learned nothing that transfers. An audit of twelve prior ProcGen codebases finds that all eleven with held-out evaluation sample test-time actions for their policy-gradient agents, nine by default rather than explicit choice, and six report running in-loop averages rather than evaluating a fixed checkpoint. Applied to our own case study, the same checks grade down a statistically significant encoder effect and rule out a within-encoder train-vs-test CKA statistic. We recommend that every reported gap state its action rule, use a matched and seeded protocol, and report the random floor on both level sets.
Title:What Does a ProcGen Generalization Gap Measure? Action Rules, Convergence, and the Missing Random Floor
Abstract:A generalization gap in reinforcement learning (return on training levels minus return on held-out levels) is usually reported without a reference point. We argue that the missing reference is a measured random floor: the return of a uniform-random policy on the same levels under the same harness. On ProcGen, the floor changes what several standard numbers mean. On identical checkpoints and levels across eight environments, switching between sampled and greedy (argmax) test-time actions moves held-out return in both directions, and greedy evaluation takes three environments to or below the floor: in miner, the sampled policy scores 4.9x the floor on held-out levels while its argmax scores below it. Raw policy entropy places seven of eight environments short of convergence, but 35-65% of that entropy is spread across actions with identical effects; after merging them, one to three remain short, and against the floor only heist has learned nothing that transfers. An audit of twelve prior ProcGen codebases finds that all eleven with held-out evaluation sample test-time actions for their policy-gradient agents, nine by default rather than explicit choice, and six report running in-loop averages rather than evaluating a fixed checkpoint. Applied to our own case study, the same checks grade down a statistically significant encoder effect and rule out a within-encoder train-vs-test CKA statistic. We recommend that every reported gap state its action rule, use a matched and seeded protocol, and report the random floor on both level sets.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.32532 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.32532v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32532 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 351 words
Related coverage

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · Sep 12, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026