Learning Domain Randomization Distributions for Training Robust Locomotion Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of learning behaviors in simulation without knowledge of the precise dynamical properties of the target robot platform(s). In this context, our learning goal is to mutually maximize task efficacy on each environment considered and generalization across the widest possible range of environmental conditions. The physical parameters of the simulator are modified by a component of our technique that learns the Domain Randomization (DR) that is appropriate at each learning epoch to maximally challenge the current behavior policy, without being overly challenging, which can hinder learning progress. This so-called sweet spot distribution is a selection of simulated domains with the following properties: 1) The trained policy should be successful in environments sampled from the domain randomization distribution; and 2) The DR distribution made as wide as possible, to increase variability in the environments. These properties aim to ensure the trajectories encountered in the target system are close to those observed during training, as existing methods in machine learning are better suited for interpolation than extrapolation. We show how adapting the DR distribution while training context-conditioned policies results in improvements on jump-start and asymptotic performance when transferring a learned policy to the target environment1.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".