To Share or Not to Share? Performance Guarantees and the Asymmetric Nature of Cross-Robot Experience Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the robotics literature, experience transfer has been proposed in different learning-based control frameworks to minimize the costs and risks associated with training robots. While various works have shown the feasibility of transferring prior experience from a source robot to improve or accelerate the learning of a target robot, there are usually no guarantees that experience transfer improves the performance of the target robot. In practice, the efficacy of transferring experience is often not known until it is tested on physical robots. This trial-and-error approach can be extremely unsafe and inefficient. Building on our previous work, in this letter we consider an inverse module transfer learning framework, where the inverse module of a source robot system is transferred to a target robot system to improve its tracking performance on arbitrary trajectories. We derive a theoretical bound on the tracking error when a source inverse module is transferred to the target robot and propose a Bayesian-optimization-based algorithm to estimate this bound from data. We further highlight the asymmetric nature of cross-robot experience transfer that has often been neglected in the literature. We demonstrate our approach in quadrotor experiments and show that we can guarantee positive transfer on the target robot for tracking random periodic trajectories.
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 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".