# Evolution Strategies for Deep RL pretraining

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00066 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00066/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in RL for robot locomotion and manipulation, one of 15 directions in Deep reinforcement learning methods.
- Builds on 6 of its 8 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- Deep reinforcement learning methods / [RL for robot locomotion and manipulation](https://mlsanity.com/deeprl/rl-for-robot-locomotion-and-manipulation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.5602/) (2013)
- [Evolution Strategies as a Scalable Alternative to Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.03864/) (2017)
- [Brax -- A Differentiable Physics Engine for Large Scale Rigid Body Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.13281/) (2021)
- [Challenges of Real-World Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.12901/) (2019)
- [Why Generalization in RL is Difficult: Epistemic POMDPs and Implicit Partial Observability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.06277/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Although Deep Reinforcement Learning has proven highly effective for complex decision-making problems, it demands significant computational resources and careful parameter adjustment in order to develop successful strategies. Evolution strategies offer a more straightforward, derivative-free approach that is less computationally costly and simpler to deploy. However, ES generally do not match the performance levels achieved by DRL, which calls into question their suitability for more demanding scenarios. This study examines the performance of ES and DRL across tasks of varying difficulty, including Flappy Bird, Breakout and Mujoco environments, as well as whether ES could be used for initial training to enhance DRL algorithms. The results indicate that ES do not consistently train faster than DRL. When used as a preliminary training step, they only provide benefits in less complex environments (Flappy Bird) and show minimal or no improvement in training efficiency or stability across different parameter settings when applied to more sophisticated tasks (Breakout and MuJoCo Walker).