Shaping Rewards for Reinforcement Learning with Imperfect Demonstrations using Generative Models
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
The potential benefits of model-free reinforcement learning to real robotics systems are limited by its uninformed exploration that leads to slow convergence, lack of data-efficiency, and unnecessary interactions with the environment. To address these drawbacks we propose a method that combines reinforcement and imitation learning by shaping the reward function with a state-and-action-dependent potential that is trained from demonstration data, using a generative model. We show that this accelerates policy learning by specifying high-value areas of the state and action space that are worth exploring first. Unlike the majority of existing methods that assume optimal demonstrations and incorporate the demonstration data as hard constraints on policy optimization, we instead incorporate demonstration data as advice in the form of a reward shaping potential trained as a generative model of states and actions. In particular, we examine both normalizing flows and Generative Adversarial Networks to represent these potentials. We show that, unlike many existing approaches that incorporate demonstrations as hard constraints, our approach is unbiased even in the case of suboptimal and noisy demonstrations. We present an extensive range of simulations, as well as experiments on the Franka Emika 7DOF arm, to demonstrate the practicality of our method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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