Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Extract-QD Framework: A Generic Approach for Quality-Diversity in Noisy, Stochastic or Uncertain Domains

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Extract-ME, a new adaptive-sampling method, is claimed to match or beat the best existing uncertain-quality-diversity method on every standard benchmark, and the Extract-QD Framework lets the same mechanism be bolted onto algorithms such…

desk verdict Useful modular framework and a solid but incremental EME variant, undermined by an internal inconsistency in the evaluation budget and missing code. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06585 v1 pith:MFVQTT5B submitted 2025-02-10 cs.NE

Manon Flageat , Johann Huber , François Helenon , Stephane Doncieux , Antoine Cully This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE
keywords Quality-DiversityOptimisationUncertainDomainsMAP-ElitesBehaviouralDiversityNoisyAdaptiveSamplingExtract-MEPGA-MAP-Elites
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quality-Diversity search usually assumes each solution is evaluated once, but in noisy, stochastic, or uncertain domains a 'lucky' evaluation can fill the archive with illusions. The paper's aim is to make Uncertain Quality-Diversity (UQD) easy to adopt: it proposes a modular Framework that re-describes every existing UQD method as a combination of interchangeable parts, and it instantiates the framework as Extract-ME (EME), an adaptive-sampling algorithm. EME spends a fixed 25% of each generation's evaluations re-evaluating elites drawn from a depth-$d$ archive, with rank-weighted extraction probability, and merges those re-evaluations with offspring through the same insertion rule. The paper reports that EME matches the best specialist method on every benchmark it runs and beats all baselines on the Ant task, whereas each existing method fails somewhere. The main experiments deliberately address only the performance-estimation sub-problem; reproducibility-aware variants are represented in the framework but not empirically tested here.

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument. The extraction operator removes a randomly chosen, rank-weighted subset of elites from the archive each generation and budgets their re-evaluations alongside offspring; the depth-augmented container keeps $d=8$ promising candidates per cell so that a re-evaluated solution whose descriptor 'drifts' can be replaced without emptying the cell; and per-solution evaluation buffers accumulate fitness and descriptor samples so every re-check improves the estimate. Taken together they convert a fixed per-generation evaluation budget into a balance between exploration (new offspring) and exploitation of reliable estimates (elite re-evaluation). The EQD Framework's contribution is to expose each of these as swappable modules, so EME is just one point in a design space that also contains ME-Sampling, Deep-Grid, Archive-Sampling, Adapt-ME, and the reproducibility-aware variants.

What would settle it

Run EME on the same four task suites while sweeping the extraction budget over 5%, 25%, and 50% and the depth over 1, 2, 8, and 32, scoring with the paper's Corrected QD-Score. If a non-default setting clearly wins on several tasks, or if EME with its fixed settings falls clearly below the best baseline on any of the four tasks, the 'first guess' and consistency claims are falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single extraction mechanism, applied generically, removes the need to choose among UQD methods: re-evaluate a fixed share of the archive each generation, keep several candidate elites per cell, and let every solution accumulate its evaluations in a buffer. EME is this mechanism instantiated with 25% extraction, depth $d=8$, exponential rank-based extraction probability, and $N=2$ first-evaluation samples. The paper states that EME 'consistently performs at least as well as the best-performing method for each task' across Arm, Hexapod, Walker, and Ant benchmarks, and that the same budget split, when applied to PGA-MAP-Elites via the framework, yields Extract-PGA with higher Corrected QD-Score on all three QD-RL tasks at no additional evaluation cost. It further claims that the Framework's six modules—selection, variation, extraction, container with depth, depth-ordering, and sample count—encompass all surveyed prior approaches as instantiations, so practitioners can derive task-specific methods by swapping modules rather than designing from scratch.

Load-bearing premise

The paper fixes EME's hyperparameters—25% extraction budget, depth 8, exponential rank-based extraction, and two first-evaluation samples—without a sensitivity study, so the 'first guess' claim assumes these hand-picked values generalize beyond the four benchmark tasks tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner facing a new uncertain QD task can start from EME's fixed settings instead of comparing a menu of UQD methods.
  • Because extraction reuses the existing evaluation budget, uncertainty handling does not necessarily cost extra samples; the paper reports this for Extract-PGA relative to PGA-MAP-Elites.
  • Swapping modules—especially the depth-ordering operator—gives a path to inject reproducibility or user preference into any UQD method without redesigning the search.
  • Existing QD-RL algorithms can be made uncertainty-aware by wrapping their variation operator in the EQD loop, improving corrected archive quality on Walker, Cheetah, and Ant at equal evaluation count.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the framework's unification claim is right, then reporting future UQD results as a tuple of six module choices would let papers be compared by construction, without re-running baselines; the paper does not itself propose this reporting convention.
  • The fixed 25% extraction budget and depth 8 are never swept, so a natural next experiment is to make the extraction fraction depend on noise level or archive size; the paper gives no evidence on how sensitive EME is to these settings.
  • EME's advantage over Archive-Sampling is concentrated on top-ranked elites, which suggests it should matter most when descriptor noise is large relative to cell size or when full-archive re-evaluation is infeasible; the Ant result points that way, but the paper does not state this as a prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Extract-QD (EQD) Framework, a modular decomposition of uncertain quality-diversity (UQD) algorithms, and Extract-ME (EME), an instantiation built on MAP-Elites that re-evaluates a fraction of archived elites each generation using a depth-based archive and per-solution evaluation buffers. EME is evaluated on four UQD benchmarks against Vanilla-ME, ME-Sampling, Adapt-ME, AS, and Deep-Grid, reporting corrected QD-score and average samples. A second experiment instantiates the framework on PGA-MAP-Elites (EPGA) and reports improved corrected QD-score on three QD-RL tasks at the same nominal evaluation budget. The paper claims that EME consistently matches or outperforms the best compared method and that the framework can be used to augment existing QD algorithms at no additional evaluation cost.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would provide a useful unifying taxonomy and a strong default UQD algorithm. The use of a corrected QD-score, ten seeds, and Holm-Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon tests is a sound evaluation methodology, and the modular framework is a helpful organizational contribution for practitioners. The EPGA result, if the evaluation-budget accounting is correct, is a practical improvement at no additional sampling cost. However, the significance is tempered by missing sensitivity analysis and by the budget-accounting ambiguity that must be resolved before the headline comparisons can be trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1.1, 4.2.3, Table 1] Section 3.1.1 and Section 4.2.3 define EME/EPGA's per-generation budget as 25% extraction and 75% new offspring, with the example that 128 evaluations per generation means 96 new offspring and 32 elite re-evaluations. Table 1, however, lists EME's Samples parameter as N=2, which Section 3.2.1 defines as the number of samples spent on the first evaluation of solutions. Under the sampling-size protocol defined in Section 4.1.4, where ME-Sampling with N=32 is said to consume 32 evaluations per offspring, 96 new offspring with N=2 consume 192 evaluations; together with 32 re-evaluations the total is 224, not 128. If N=1 was used in the experiments, Table 1 and the Samples module are mis-specified; if N=2 was used, the 'no additional evaluation cost' claim in Section 4.2.4 and the fair-budget comparison are not supported. Since the code is only a placeholder URL (Section 4.1.2), this ambiguity cannot be resolved from the manuscript.
  2. [3.1.3] The extraction probability is described as 'exponentially-proportional to their rank in their cell', but no formula, normalization, or parameter is given. This is an essential component of EME and of any reproduction of the experiments; without code or a precise definition, the method is underspecified. Please provide the exact distribution (or pseudo-code) and, ideally, a sensitivity check on its shape.
  3. [3.1.1, 3.1.3, Table 1] EME's main hyperparameters are fixed without sensitivity analysis: 25% extraction proportion, depth d=8, exponential rank-based extraction, and N=2. Since the paper's abstract recommends EME as a reliable 'first guess' for any new uncertain task, the authors should either report sensitivity experiments over plausible ranges of these parameters or moderate the generality claim to the tested configuration.
  4. [4.1.5] The phrase 'consistently performs at least as well as the best-performing method for each task' is stronger than the evidence: AS is not defined on Hexapod and Ant (Section 4.1.5) and is therefore absent from exactly half of the benchmark tasks, yet AS is one of the strongest methods where it runs. Please either phrase the claim as 'best-performing method among those defined on the task', or provide a feasible AS variant for large archives to make the comparison complete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.2.2, 3.2.2, Table 1] Section 2.2.2 cites ME-Sampling as [9], while Section 3.2.2 and Table 1 cite it as [28]; reference [28] is also used for Adapt-ME in Section 2.2.3. The correct source should be identified consistently.
  2. [4.1.2] Section 4.1.2 states that code will be released at 'URL-to-be-released-upon-acceptance'; for a paper whose central contribution is empirical and whose algorithm is underspecified in places, providing code or at least a detailed pseudo-code appendix would considerably strengthen reproducibility.
  3. [Table 1] The symbols p_b and min(p_b, C) are not defined in the table or in the surrounding text; please define them explicitly.
  4. [4.1.3] The paper reports 'p-values using the Wilcoxon test with Holm-Bonferroni correction' but does not state the number of tests or the family over which the correction is applied; please clarify.
  5. [3.2.1, Appendix A] There are several small grammatical issues, for example 'In this section, we first introduced its modules' in Section 3.2.1 and 'MOME-X build on top of existing multi-objective QD works' in Appendix A; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: EME and EPGA are novel algorithmic combinations whose empirical claims are measured on external benchmarks; self-citations supply protocol and baseline details but do not constitute load-bearing circular reasoning.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. EME is presented as a specific algorithmic combination of an extraction mechanism (25% of the per-generation budget), archive depth (d=8), exponential rank-based extraction, and N=2 first-evaluation samples (Section 3.1 and Table 1). The EQD Framework in Section 3.2 is a modular description that is generalized from EME and existing UQD methods rather than an equation that forces EME's performance. The central empirical claim in Section 4.1.5 is a measured comparison against external tasks used in prior UQD work, and the EPGA result in Section 4.2.4 is a measured comparison under a fixed per-generation evaluation budget; neither score is constructed from the algorithm's own fitted parameters. The paper's self-citations to prior work by the same authors define tasks, baselines, and the corrected-QD-score protocol, but these are methodological choices and not theorems whose acceptance would entail the reported outcomes; the reported results could have gone either way. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction of that same data, and no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is used to declare EME forced. The remaining concerns are non-circular: Section 4.1.2 says the code is at 'URL-to-be-released-upon-acceptance', so reproducibility cannot currently be checked; Section 5 self-reports the limitation of focusing on the Performance Estimation problem; and there is an internal accounting inconsistency between Section 3.1.1 and Section 4.2.3 (96 new offspring plus 32 re-evaluations for a 128-evaluation budget) versus Table 1 (first-evaluation samples N=2), which affects the verifiability of the 'no additional evaluation cost' claim. None of these reduce the paper's claims to their inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claims rest on the benchmark suite, the corrected-archive metric, and the fixed EME hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Extraction proportion = 25%
    Fixed in Section 3.1.1; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Archive depth d = 8
    Fixed in Section 3.1.3; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Extraction probability distribution = Exponentially proportional to rank
    Section 3.1.3; the rate parameter is not specified.
  • First-evaluation samples N = 2
    Table 1 lists N=2 for EME; no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MAP-Elites grid archive and mutation-based variation are used as the base algorithm.
    The paper builds on the QD Framework and MAP-Elites without formalizing them; it assumes the reader accepts these as standard.
  • domain assumption Median of 512 re-evaluations approximates ground-truth fitness and descriptors.
    Used to construct the corrected archive metric in Section 4.1.3; the number 512 is taken from prior work, not justified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The corrected QD-Score is a valid summary of performance and diversity.
    All comparisons rely on this metric; it sums fitness over corrected archive cells.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential rank-based extraction probability preserves exploration while focusing reevaluations.
    This design choice in Section 3.1.3 is not derived and is a key part of EME.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extract-QD Framework: A Generic Approach for Quality-Diversity in Noisy, Stochastic or Uncertain Domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFVQTT5B

@misc{pith2026250206585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extract-QD Framework: A Generic Approach for Quality-Diversity in Noisy, Stochastic or Uncertain Domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFVQTT5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06585}
}
read the original abstract

Quality-Diversity (QD) has demonstrated potential in discovering collections of diverse solutions to optimisation problems. Originally designed for deterministic environments, QD has been extended to noisy, stochastic, or uncertain domains through various Uncertain-QD (UQD) methods. However, the large number of UQD methods, each with unique constraints, makes selecting the most suitable one challenging. To remedy this situation, we present two contributions: first, the Extract-QD Framework (EQD Framework), and second, Extract-ME (EME), a new method derived from it. The EQD Framework unifies existing approaches within a modular view, and facilitates developing novel methods by interchanging modules. We use it to derive EME, a novel method that consistently outperforms or matches the best existing methods on standard benchmarks, while previous methods show varying performance. In a second experiment, we show how our EQD Framework can be used to augment existing QD algorithms and in particular the well-established Policy-Gradient-Assisted-MAP-Elites method, and demonstrate improved performance in uncertain domains at no additional evaluation cost. For any new uncertain task, our contributions now provide EME as a reliable "first guess" method, and the EQD Framework as a tool for developing task-specific approaches. Together, these contributions aim to lower the cost of adopting UQD insights in QD applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the (A) standard QD setup, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In EME, elites are extracted randomly from the archive to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of (A) the existing QD Framework for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of our EME approach with similar existing UQD approaches. The Corrected QD-Score reflects performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final Corrected Archive of a random replication of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of our proposed EPGA approach with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of our EME approach compared to existing UQD approaches tackling the Performance Estimation problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of our EPGA approach compared to Vanilla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Run time in hours taken by all approaches on all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akiko N Aizawa and Benjamin W Wah. 1994. A sequential sampling procedure for genetic algorithms. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 27, 9-10 (1994), 77–82

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Jürgen Branke, Christian Schmidt, and Hartmut Schmeck. 2001. Efficient fitness estimation in noisy environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation . 243–250

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Erick Cantú-Paz. 2004. Adaptive sampling for noisy problems. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Springer, 947–958

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Felix Chalumeau, Bryan Lim, Raphael Boige, Maxime Allard, Luca Grillotti, Manon Flageat, Valentin Macé, Guillaume Richard, Arthur Flajolet, Thomas Pierrot, et al. 2024. Qdax: A library for quality-diversity and population-based algorithms with hardware acceleration. Journal of Machine Learning Research 25, 108 (2024), 1–16

    2024

  5. [5]

    Konstantinos Chatzilygeroudis, Antoine Cully, Vassilis Vassiliades, and Jean- Baptiste Mouret. 2021. Quality-Diversity Optimization: a novel branch of sto- chastic optimization. In Black Box Optimization, Machine Learning, and No-Free Lunch Theorems. Springer, 109–135

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Cédric Colas, Vashisht Madhavan, Joost Huizinga, and Jeff Clune. 2020. Scal- ing map-elites to deep neuroevolution. In Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 67–75

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Antoine Cully, Jeff Clune, Danesh Tarapore, and Jean-Baptiste Mouret. 2015. Robots that can adapt like animals. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 503–507

    2015

  8. [8]

    Antoine Cully and Yiannis Demiris. 2017. Quality and diversity optimization: A unifying modular framework. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 22, 2 (2017), 245–259

    2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Antoine Cully and Yiannis Demiris. 2018. Hierarchical behavioral repertoires with unsupervised descriptors. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 69–76

    2018

  2. [10]

    Sam Earle, Justin Snider, Matthew C Fontaine, Stefanos Nikolaidis, and Julian Togelius. 2022. Illuminating diverse neural cellular automata for level generation. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference . 68–76

    2022

  3. [11]

    Maxence Faldor, Félix Chalumeau, Manon Flageat, and Antoine Cully. 2023. Syn- ergizing Quality-Diversity with Descriptor-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08632 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Manon Flageat, Felix Chalumeau, and Antoine Cully. 2023. Empirical analysis of PGA-MAP-Elites for Neuroevolution in Uncertain Domains. ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning 3, 1 (2023), 1–32

    2023

  5. [13]

    Manon Flageat and Antoine Cully. 2020. Fast and stable MAP-Elites in noisy domains using deep grids. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 32 . MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA journals-info, 273–282

    2020

  6. [14]

    Manon Flageat and Antoine Cully. 2023. Uncertain Quality-Diversity: Evaluation methodology and new methods for Quality-Diversity in Uncertain Domains. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Manon Flageat, Hannah Janmohamed, Bryan Lim, and Antoine Cully. 2024. Exploring the Performance-Reproducibility Trade-off in Quality-Diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13315 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Manon Flageat, Bryan Lim, and Antoine Cully. 2024. Enhancing MAP-Elites with Multiple Parallel Evolution Strategies. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 1082–1090

    2024

  9. [17]

    Scott Fujimoto, Herke Hoof, and David Meger. 2018. Addressing function ap- proximation error in actor-critic methods. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1587–1596

    2018

  10. [18]

    Adam Gaier, Alexander Asteroth, and Jean-Baptiste Mouret. 2017. Aerodynamic design exploration through surrogate-assisted illumination. In 18th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference . 3330

    2017

  11. [19]

    Adam Gaier, James Stoddart, Lorenzo Villaggi, and Shyam Sudhakaran. 2024. Generative Design through Quality-Diversity Data Synthesis and Language Models. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference . 823–831

    2024

  12. [20]

    Daniele Gravina, Ahmed Khalifa, Antonios Liapis, Julian Togelius, and Geor- gios N Yannakakis. 2019. Procedural content generation through quality diversity. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) . IEEE, 1–8

    2019

  13. [21]

    Luca Grillotti, Manon Flageat, Bryan Lim, and Antoine Cully. 2023. Don’t Bet on Luck Alone: Enhancing Behavioral Reproducibility of Quality-Diversity Solutions in Uncertain Domains. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 156–164

    2023

  14. [22]

    Johann Huber, François Hélénon, Miranda Coninx, F Ben Amar, and Stéphane Doncieux. 2023. Quality Diversity under Sparse Reward and Sparse Interaction: Application to Grasping in Robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05483 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Johann Huber, François Hélénon, Mathilde Kappel, Elie Chelly, Mahdi Kho- ramshahi, Faïz Ben Amar, and Stéphane Doncieux. 2024. Speeding up 6-DoF Grasp Sampling with Quality-Diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06173 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Johann Huber, François Hélénon, Mathilde Kappel, Ignacio de Loyola Páez- Ubieta, Santiago T Puente, Pablo Gil, Faïz Ben Amar, and Stéphane Doncieux

  17. [25]

    Johann Huber, François Hélénon, Hippolyte Watrelot, Faïz Ben Amar, and Stéphane Doncieux. 2024. Domain randomization for sim2real transfer of auto- matically generated grasping datasets. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 4112–4118

    2024

  18. [26]

    Hannah Janmohamed, Thomas Pierrot, and Antoine Cully. 2023. Improving the Data Efficiency of Multi-Objective Quality-Diversity through Gradient Assis- tance and Crowding Exploration. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 165–173

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yaochu Jin and Jürgen Branke. 2005. Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments-a survey. IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation 9, 3 (2005), 303–317

    2005

  20. [28]

    Niels Justesen, Sebastian Risi, and Jean-Baptiste Mouret. 2019. Map-elites for noisy domains by adaptive sampling. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolution- ary Computation Conference Companion . 121–122

    2019

  21. [29]

    Erwan Lecarpentier, Paul Templier, Emmanuel Rachelson, and Dennis G Wilson

  22. [30]

    Joel Lehman and Kenneth O Stanley. 2011. Evolving a diversity of virtual crea- tures through novelty search and local competition. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation . 211–218

    2011

  23. [31]

    Joel Lehman and Kenneth O Stanley. 2011. Novelty search and the problem with objectives. Genetic programming theory and practice IX (2011), 37–56

    2011

  24. [32]

    Bryan Lim, Maxime Allard, Luca Grillotti, and Antoine Cully. 2022. Accelerated quality-diversity for robotics through massive parallelism. In ICLR Workshop on Agent Learning in Open-Endedness

    2022

  25. [33]

    Valentin Macé, Raphaël Boige, Felix Chalumeau, Thomas Pierrot, Guillaume Richard, and Nicolas Perrin-Gilbert. 2023. The quality-diversity transformer: Generating behavior-conditioned trajectories with decision transformers. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Comput...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Jean-Baptiste Mouret and Jeff Clune. 2015. Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04909 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Olle Nilsson and Antoine Cully. 2021. Policy gradient assisted map-elites. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference . 866–875

    2021

  28. [36]

    Thomas Pierrot, Valentin Macé, Felix Chalumeau, Arthur Flajolet, Geoffrey Cideron, Karim Beguir, Antoine Cully, Olivier Sigaud, and Nicolas Perrin-Gilbert

  29. [37]

    Thomas Pierrot, Guillaume Richard, Karim Beguir, and Antoine Cully. 2022. Multi-objective quality diversity optimization. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. 139–147

    2022

  30. [38]

    Justin K Pugh, Lisa B Soros, and Kenneth O Stanley. 2016. Quality diversity: A new frontier for evolutionary computation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2016), 40

    2016

  31. [39]

    In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

    Diversity policy gradient for sample efficient quality-diversity optimization. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference . 1075– 1083

  32. [40]

    Mikayel Samvelyan, Sharath Chandra Raparthy, Andrei Lupu, Eric Hambro, Aram H Markosyan, Manish Bhatt, Yuning Mao, Minqi Jiang, Jack Parker-Holder, Jakob Foerster, et al. 2024. Rainbow teaming: Open-ended generation of diverse adversarial prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.168...

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Florian Siegmund, Amos HC Ng, and Kalyanmoy Deb. 2013. A comparative study of dynamic resampling strategies for guided evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation . IEEE, 1826– 1835

    2013

  34. [42]

    Pratyusha Rakshit, Amit Konar, and Swagatam Das. 2017. Noisy evolutionary optimization algorithms–a comprehensive survey. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 33 (2017), 18–45

    2017

  35. [43]

    Bryon Tjanaka, Matthew C Fontaine, David H Lee, Aniruddha Kalkar, and Ste- fanos Nikolaidis. 2023. Training diverse high-dimensional controllers by scaling covariance matrix adaptation map-annealing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2023). Flageat et al

    2023

  36. [44]

    Bryon Tjanaka, Matthew C Fontaine, Julian Togelius, and Stefanos Nikolaidis

  37. [45]

    Florian Siegmund, Amos HC Ng, and Kalyanmoy Deb. 2015. Hybrid dynamic resampling for guided evolutionary multi-objective optimization. InEvolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization: 8th International Conference, EMO 2015, Guimarães, Portugal, March 29–April 1, 2015. Proceedings,...

    2015

  38. [46]

    Daan Wierstra, Tom Schaul, Tobias Glasmachers, Yi Sun, Jan Peters, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2014. Natural evolution strategies.The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15, 1 (2014), 949–980. Extract-QD Framework: A Generic Approach for Quality-Diversity in Noisy, Stochastic or ...

    2014

  39. [48]

    In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Con- ference

    Approximating gradients for differentiable quality diversity in reinforce- ment learning. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Con- ference. 1102–1111

  40. [49]

    Mark Towers, Ariel Kwiatkowski, Jordan Terry, John U Balis, Gianluca De Cola, Tristan Deleu, Manuel Goulão, Andreas Kallinteris, Markus Krimmel, Arjun KG, et al. 2024. Gymnasium: A Standard Interface for Reinforcement Learning Environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17032 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

    LUCIE: an evaluation and selection method for stochastic problems. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference . 730–738

  42. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02319 (2024)

    QDGset: A Large Scale Grasping Dataset Generated with Quality-Diversity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02319 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.