MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385473744 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16062

Using Implicit Behavior Cloning and Dynamic Movement Primitive to Facilitate Reinforcement Learning for Robot Motion Planning

2023· preprint· en· W4385473744 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zengjie Zhang, Jayden Hong, Amir Soufi Enayati, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceGeneralizability theoryRobotArtificial intelligenceHeuristicMotion planningMotion (physics)KinematicsSimulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforcement learning (RL) for motion planning of multi-degree-of-freedom robots still suffers from low efficiency in terms of slow training speed and poor generalizability. In this paper, we propose a novel RL-based robot motion planning framework that uses implicit behavior cloning (IBC) and dynamic movement primitive (DMP) to improve the training speed and generalizability of an off-policy RL agent. IBC utilizes human demonstration data to leverage the training speed of RL, and DMP serves as a heuristic model that transfers motion planning into a simpler planning space. To support this, we also create a human demonstration dataset using a pick-and-place experiment that can be used for similar studies. Comparison studies in simulation reveal the advantage of the proposed method over the conventional RL agents with faster training speed and higher scores. A real-robot experiment indicates the applicability of the proposed method to a simple assembly task. Our work provides a novel perspective on using motion primitives and human demonstration to leverage the performance of RL for robot applications.

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.051 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207