MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092277419 · doi:10.1145/3424636.3426907

Learning to Locomote: Understanding How Environment Design Matters for Deep Reinforcement Learning

2020· preprint· en· W3092277419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAnimationAction (physics)Embodied cognitionEmbodied agentControl (management)Machine learningHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning to locomote is one of the most common tasks in physics-based animation and deep reinforcement learning (RL). A learned policy is the product of the problem to be solved, as embodied by the RL environment, and the RL algorithm. While enormous attention has been devoted to RL algorithms, much less is known about the impact of design choices for the RL environment. In this paper, we show that environment design matters in significant ways and document how it can contribute to the brittle nature of many RL results. Specifically, we examine choices related to state representations, initial state distributions, reward structure, control frequency, episode termination procedures, curriculum usage, the action space, and the torque limits. We aim to stimulate discussion around such choices, which in practice strongly impact the success of RL when applied to continuous-action control problems of interest to animation, such as learning to locomote.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207