MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400459471 · doi:10.1007/s10846-024-02118-y

Deep Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Predictive Control of Robotic Systems with Dense and Sparse Rewards

2024· article· en· W4400459471 on OpenAlexafffund
Luka Antonyshyn, Sidney Givigi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTask (project management)Machine learningModel predictive controlRoboticsSample (material)Field (mathematics)Bellman equationRobotBinary classificationControl (management)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringSupport vector machineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sparse rewards and sample efficiency are open areas of research in the field of reinforcement learning. These problems are especially important when considering applications of reinforcement learning to robotics and other cyber-physical systems. This is so because in these domains many tasks are goal-based and naturally expressed with binary successes and failures, action spaces are large and continuous, and real interactions with the environment are limited. In this work, we propose Deep Value-and-Predictive-Model Control (DVPMC), a model-based predictive reinforcement learning algorithm for continuous control that uses system identification, value function approximation and sampling-based optimization to select actions. The algorithm is evaluated on a dense reward and a sparse reward task. We show that it can match the performance of a predictive control approach to the dense reward problem, and outperforms model-free and model-based learning algorithms on the sparse reward task on the metrics of sample efficiency and performance. We verify the performance of an agent trained in simulation using DVPMC on a real robot playing the reach-avoid game. Video of the experiment can be found here: https://youtu.be/0Q274kcfn4c .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent & Robotic SystemsSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207