MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124264120 · doi:10.65109/zliw2815

Mastering Robot Control through Point-based Reinforcement Learning with Pre-training

2024· article· W7124264120 on OpenAlexaff
Cong Wang, Tianpei Yang, Meng Wang, Yingfeng Chen, Jifei Zhou, Chaoyi Zhao, Xinfeng Zhang, Zeng Zhao, Changjie Fan, Rong Xiong, Long Zeng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningRobustness (evolution)RobotLeverage (statistics)RoboticsLimitingRendering (computer graphics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual-based Reinforcement Learning (RL) has gained prominence in robotics decision-making due to its significant potential. However, the prevalent utilization of images in visual-based RL lacks explicit descriptions of object structures and spatial configurations in scenes, thereby limiting the overall efficiency and robustness of RL in robot control. Additionally, training an RL policy solely using visual observations from scratch is typically sample-inefficient, rendering it impractical for real-world application. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a novel method, called Pre-training on Point-based RL (P2RL), which takes the point cloud representations of scenes as states and preserves the intricate spatial details between objects. To further enhance efficiency, we leverage the pre-training method to bolster the perception ability of the network. Key factors in the pre-training process are systematically examined to optimize downstream RL training. Experimental results demonstrate the superior robustness and efficiency of P2RL compared to the state-of-the-art image-based RL method, especially in evaluations involving untrained scenes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207