Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Specifying reward functions for robots is one of the hardest things about reinforcement learning. Robot rewards often need to be very detailed; metrics like progress can be ill-defined and hard to estimate. This leads to most robot learning defaulting to sparse rewards or simple preference learning. But naive preference...

13,768 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von Nghẹo | DOPE
Nghẹo | DOPEvor 3 Tagen

Sparse rewards often hide the behaviors we actually want

Profilbild von Muhammad Ahmed
Muhammad Ahmedvor 3 Tagen

A preference like 'better trajectory' hides the reason for choosing it. Being able to say 'less force' or 'fewer unnecessary motions' gives robot learning feedback that's much closer to what we actually care about.

Ähnliche Videos

Experiments in progress. The one on the right has been learning for ~3 hours, the one in the middle for ~1 hour, and the one on the left just started a few minutes ago. The initial motivation for making the physical Atari was just to commit ourselves to a subset of algorithms that can make progress in this setup. This commitment rules out algorithms that require billions of samples to learn (or worse, require multiple environments running in parallel). Atari games are simple enough that we should be able to show learning on them in a short amount of time with no prior knowledge. Since then, I've realized that this setup is also a good way to compare different paradigms in robotics in a principled way. These paradigms are sim2real, learning from tele-operated data, and learning directly on the robots. So far, I have observed that getting sim2real to work reliably is hard. It requires tweaks that don't scale. Policies that can play perfectly in simulation fall apart because of latencies and the messiness of the real world. These aspects could be modeled to improve the simulation, but not without sinking significant human engineering hours. I have higher hopes for learning from tele-operated data, but that requires a human to learn the task first. These experiments are on my to-do list. I have to learn to play some of the games well through the robot. I’m half-decent at playing Pong and Ms Pacman now. Learning directly on robots is looking like the most promising approach. This approach takes away pesky distribution shifts and makes it possible to have algorithms that continually improve with more data and time without any human intervention. It feels great to let experiments run overnight and wake up to find improved policies. With learning on robots, I should, in principle, be able to go on a long vacation and come back to find better policies for complex tasks beyond Atari games. Whether that is possible with current learning algorithms is a different question.

Khurram Javed

52,110 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten