Dynamics Randomization Revisited: A Case Study for Quadrupedal Locomotion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the gap between simulation and reality is critical for reinforcement learning with legged robots, which are largely trained in simulation. However, recent work has resulted in sometimes conflicting conclusions with regard to which factors are important for success, including the role of dynamics randomization. In this paper, we aim to provide clarity and understanding on the role of dynamics randomization in learning robust locomotion policies for the Laikago quadruped robot. Surprisingly, in contrast to prior work with the same robot model, we find that direct sim-to-real transfer is possible without dynamics randomization or on-robot adaptation schemes. We conduct extensive ablation studies in a sim-to-sim setting to understand the key issues underlying successful policy transfer, including other design decisions that can impact policy robustness. We further ground our conclusions via sim-to-real experiments with various gaits, speeds, and stepping frequencies. Additional Details: pair.toronto.edu/understanding-dr/
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it