Physics-Based Motion Imitation with Adversarial Differential Discriminators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-objective optimization problems, which require the simultaneous optimization of multiple objectives, are prevalent across numerous applications. Existing multi-objective optimization methods often rely on manually-tuned aggregation functions to formulate a joint optimization objective. The performance of such hand-tuned methods is heavily dependent on careful weight selection, a time-consuming and laborious process. These limitations also arise in the setting of reinforcement-learning-based motion tracking methods for physically simulated characters, where intricately crafted reward functions are typically used to achieve high-fidelity results. Such solutions not only require domain expertise and significant manual tuning, but also limit the applicability of the resulting reward function across diverse skills. To bridge this gap, we present a novel adversarial multi-objective optimization technique that is broadly applicable to a range of multi-objective reinforcement-learning tasks, including motion tracking. Our proposed Adversarial Differential Discriminator (ADD) receives a single positive sample, yet is still effective at guiding the optimization process. We demonstrate that our technique can enable characters to closely replicate a variety of acrobatic and agile behaviors, achieving comparable quality to state-of-the-art motion-tracking methods, without relying on manually-designed reward functions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".