Safe Reinforcement Learning for Arm Manipulation with Constrained Markov Decision Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the world of human–robot coexistence, ensuring safe interactions is crucial. Traditional logic-based methods often lack the intuition required for robots, particularly in complex environments where these methods fail to account for all possible scenarios. Reinforcement learning has shown promise in robotics due to its superior adaptability over traditional logic. However, the exploratory nature of reinforcement learning can jeopardize safety. This paper addresses the challenges in planning trajectories for robotic arm manipulators in dynamic environments. In addition, this paper highlights the pitfalls of multiple reward compositions that are susceptible to reward hacking. A novel method with a simplified reward and constraint formulation is proposed. This enables the robot arm to avoid a nonstationary obstacle that never resets, enhancing operational safety. The proposed approach combines scalarized expected returns with a constrained Markov decision process through a Lagrange multiplier, resulting in better performance. The scalarization component uses the indicator cost function value, directly sampled from the replay buffer, as an additional scaling factor. This method is particularly effective in dynamic environments where conditions change continually, as opposed to approaches relying solely on the expected cost scaled by a Lagrange multiplier.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".