Robotic System Sensitivity to Neural Network Learning Rate: Theory, Simulation, and Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection of neural network learning rates to obtain satisfactory performance from neural network controllers is a challenging problem. To assist in the selection of learning rates, this paper investigates robotic system sensitivity to neural network (NN) learning rate. The work reported here consists of experimental and simulation results. A neural network controller module, developed for the purpose of experimental evaluation of neural network controller performance of a CRS Robotics Corporation A460 robot, allows testing of NN controllers using real-time iterative learning. The A460 is equipped with a joint position proportional, integral, and derivative (PID) controller. The neural network module supplies a signal to compensate for remaining errors in the PID-controlled system. A robot simulation, which models this PID-controlled A460 robot and NN controller, was also developed to allow the calculation of sensitivity to the NN learning rate. This paper describes the implementation of three NN architectures: the error back-propagation (EBP) NN, mixture of experts (ME) NN, and manipulator operations using value encoding (MOVE) NN. The sensitivity of joint trajectory error of three NN controllers to learning rate was investigated using both simulation and experimentation. Similar results were obtained from the robot experiments and the dynamic simulation. These results of state sensitivity to NN learning rate confirm that the MOVE NN is least sensitive to learning rate, implying that selection of suitable learning rates for this NN architecture for the system considered is accomplished more readily than other NN architectures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".