MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986670254 · doi:10.1115/imece2007-41644

Assess Team Q-Learning Algorithm in a Purely Cooperative Multi-Robot Task

2007· article· en· W1986670254 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Wang, Clarence W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceConvergence (economics)Q-learningRobot learningObject (grammar)RoboticsMarkov decision processAlgorithmMachine learningMarkov processReinforcement learningMobile robotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-robot systems have received more and more attentions in the robotics community in the past decade. The most important issue in this area is multi-robot coordination, which focuses on how to make multiple autonomous robots cooperate or compete with each other to complete a common task. Due to its complexity, the conventional planning-based or behavior-based approaches can not work well in multi-robot coordination, especially in a dynamic unknown environment. Therefore, machine learning is becoming a promising method to help robots work in an unknown dynamic environment and improve their performance increasingly. The Q-learning algorithm was selected by most of multi-robot researchers to accomplish the above objective because of its simplicity and low computational requirements. However, directly extending the single-agent Q-learning algorithm will violate its Markov assumption and result in a low convergence speed and failing to learn a good cooperative policy. In this paper, the team Q-learning algorithm, which was originally designed for the framework of Stochastic Games (SG), is proposed to make decisions for a multi-robot purely cooperative project: Multi-robot object transportation. Firstly, the basic idea of the framework of Stochastic Games and the team Q-learning algorithm are introduced. Next, the algorithm is extended to a multi-robot object transportation task, and the implementation details are presented. Some computer simulation results are presented to demonstrate that the team Q-learning algorithm works well to make decisions for the proposed multi-robot system. Finally, effects of some parameters of team Q-learning are assessed and some interesting conclusions are drawn. In particular, the simulation results show that training is helpful for improving the performance of multi-robot decision-making, but its effect is very limited. In addition, it is also pointed out that the team Q-learning will result in a huge learning space when the robot number is bigger than ten, which indicates that a new Q-learning algorithm integrating single-agent Q-learning and Team Q-learning is urgent to be developed for multi-robot systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207