arXiv (Cornell University) · 2016 · 167 citations · 3 references
ComputingComputer ScienceRobotics EngineeringArtificial IntelligenceRobot ControlRoboticsDeep LearningInverse DynamicsPolicy LearningReinforcement LearningSim-to-real TransferSimulation-based LearningDeep Reinforcement LearningDynamics Model LearningFrictionInverse Dynamics ControlInverse Dynamics ModelingInverse Model LearningReinforcement Learning For RoboticsReinforcement Learning Transfer
Developing control policies in simulation is safer and more practical than real‑world experiments, yet policies that succeed in simulation often fail when deployed on real robots, although the overall behavior usually remains valid. The study investigates scenarios where the simulated state trajectory remains realistic for the real world, but the exact control commands differ due to discrepancies in friction, contact, mass, and geometry. At each step the method predicts the next state from the simulation policy, then uses a learned deep inverse dynamics model to select the real‑world action that will achieve that state, with an incremental data‑collection scheme to train the model. Experiments demonstrate that this approach outperforms baseline methods such as output‑error control and Gaussian dynamics adaptation for bridging simulation–real world gaps.
Developing control policies in simulation is often more practical and safer than directly running experiments in the real world. This applies to policies obtained from planning and optimization, and even more so to policies obtained from reinforcement learning, which is often very data demanding. However, a policy that succeeds in simulation often doesn't work when deployed on a real robot. Nevertheless, often the overall gist of what the policy does in simulation remains valid in the real world. In this paper we investigate such settings, where the sequence of states traversed in simulation remains reasonable for the real world, even if the details of the controls are not, as could be the case when the key differences lie in detailed friction, contact, mass and geometry properties. During execution, at each time step our approach computes what the simulation-based control policy would do, but then, rather than executing these controls on the real robot, our approach computes what the simulation expects the resulting next state(s) will be, and then relies on a learned deep inverse dynamics model to decide which real-world action is most suitable to achieve those next states. Deep models are only as good as their training data, and we also propose an approach for data collection to (incrementally) learn the deep inverse dynamics model. Our experiments shows our approach compares favorably with various baselines that have been developed for dealing with simulation to real world model discrepancy, including output error control and Gaussian dynamics adaptation.
3
Learning inverse dynamics models with contacts
Roberto Calandra, Serena Ivaldi, Marc Peter Deisenroth et al. · 2015 · 54 citations
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Engineering +17