MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030246915

Network architecture enforced symmetry

2019· dissertation· en· W7030246915 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningGaitVariety (cybernetics)Symmetry (geometry)Work (physics)Task (project management)Space (punctuation)Motion (physics)Action (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep reinforcement learning has only been recently used to control characters with continuous action space and high degrees of freedom.The locomotion produced by policies that are generated from the direct application of deep reinforcement learning are seldom symmetric.As such a direct application does not provide a mechanism to impart symmetry.One of the ways to generate more human-like locomotion is to introduce a reward to mimic motion-capture data and the other way is to introduce symmetry constraints.This thesis proposes a novel method that is hard-constrained to be state-action space symmetric and enforces temporal-state symmetry while penalizing for energy usage.This mechanism can generate a variety of natural looking gait patterns that capture the correct level of symmetry for the given task in an automated fashion.The proposed method is robust to learning a variety of desired gaits even on rugged terrain.This level of diversity is greater than an existing state-of-the-art work that uses deep reinforcement learning for symmetric locomotion.In quantitative comparisons, our method generates policies that are comparable in visual appeal and show lower variance in evaluation metrics compared to the state-of-the-art.i List of Tables 4.1 Body Dimensions for symmetric bipedal walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2 Joint position, limit and max-torque for symmetric bipedal character . . . .4.3 Body Dimensions for asymmetric bipedal character . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.4 Joint position, limit and max torque for asymmetric bipedal character . . .4.5 Gains for reward-components corresponding to different gaits . . . . . . .5.1 Evaluation metrics of policies for different gaits generated using HACTS, on flat terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207