A Preliminary Study of Transfer Learning between Unicycle Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods from machine learning have successfully been used to improve the performance of control systems in cases when accurate models of the system or the environment are not available. These methods require the use of data generated from physical trials. Transfer Learning (TL) allows for this data to come from a different, similar system. The goal of this work is to understand in which cases a simple, alignment-based transfer of data is beneficial. A scalar, linear, time invariant(LTI) transformation is applied to the output from a source system to align with the output from a target system. In a theoretic study, we have already shown that for linear, single-input, single-output systems, the upper bound of the transformation error depends on the dynamic properties of the source and target system, and is small for systems with similar response times. We now consider two nonlinear, unicycle robots. Based on our previous work, we derive analytic error bounds for the linearized robot models. We then provide simulations of the nonlinear robot models and experiments with a Pioneer 3-AT robot that confirm the theoretical findings. As a result, key characteristics of alignment based transfer learning observed in our theoretic study prove to be also true for real, nonlinear unicycle robots.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".