MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387323309 · doi:10.1145/3618375

AdaptNet: Policy Adaptation for Physics-Based Character Control

2023· article· en· W4387323309 on OpenAlexafffund
Pei Xu, Kaixiang Xie, Sheldon Andrews, Paul G. Kry, Michael Neff, Morgan McGuire, Ioannis Karamouzas, Victor Zordan

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooÉcole de Technologie SupérieureMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsReinforcement learningAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceScratchEmbeddingTask (project management)HierarchyCode (set theory)Space (punctuation)Character (mathematics)Control (management)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by humans' ability to adapt skills in the learning of new ones, this paper presents AdaptNet, an approach for modifying the latent space of existing policies to allow new behaviors to be quickly learned from like tasks in comparison to learning from scratch. Building on top of a given reinforcement learning controller, AdaptNet uses a two-tier hierarchy that augments the original state embedding to support modest changes in a behavior and further modifies the policy network layers to make more substantive changes. The technique is shown to be effective for adapting existing physics-based controllers to a wide range of new styles for locomotion, new task targets, changes in character morphology and extensive changes in environment. Furthermore, it exhibits significant increase in learning efficiency, as indicated by greatly reduced training times when compared to training from scratch or using other approaches that modify existing policies. Code is available at https://motion-lab.github.io/AdaptNet .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207