Evolving Multimodal Robot Behavior via Many Stepping Stones with the Combinatorial Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important challenge in reinforcement learning is to solve multimodal problems, where agents have to act in qualitatively different ways depending on the circumstances. Because multimodal problems are often too difficult to solve directly, it is often helpful to define a curriculum, which is an ordered set of subtasks that can serve as the stepping stones for solving the overall problem. Unfortunately, choosing an effective ordering for these subtasks is difficult, and a poor ordering can reduce the performance of the learning process. Here, we provide a thorough introduction and investigation of the Combinatorial Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm (CMOEA), which allows all combinations of subtasks to be explored simultaneously. We compare CMOEA against three algorithms that can similarly optimize on multiple subtasks simultaneously: NSGA-II, NSGA-III, and ε-Lexicase Selection. The algorithms are tested on a function-optimization problem with two subtasks, a simulated multimodal robot locomotion problem with six subtasks, and a simulated robot maze-navigation problem where a hundred random mazes are treated as subtasks. On these problems, CMOEA either outperforms or is competitive with the controls. As a separate contribution, we show that adding a linear combination over all objectives can improve the ability of the control algorithms to solve these multimodal problems. Lastly, we show that CMOEA can leverage auxiliary objectives more effectively than the controls on the multimodal locomotion task. In general, our experiments suggest that CMOEA is a promising algorithm for solving multimodal problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".