Using Implicit Behavior Cloning and Dynamic Movement Primitive to Facilitate Reinforcement Learning for Robot Motion Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 article, 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 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".