1 / 23

Using Inaccurate Models in Reinforcement Learning

Using Inaccurate Models in Reinforcement Learning. Pieter Abbeel, Morgan Quigley and Andrew Y. Ng Stanford University. Overview. Reinforcement learning in high-dimensional continuous state-spaces. Model-based RL: Difficult to build an accurate model.

yasuo
Download Presentation

Using Inaccurate Models in Reinforcement Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Using Inaccurate Models in Reinforcement Learning Pieter Abbeel, Morgan Quigley and Andrew Y. Ng Stanford University

  2. Overview • Reinforcement learning in high-dimensional continuous state-spaces. • Model-based RL: Difficult to build an accurate model. • Model-free RL: Often requires large numbers of real-life trials. • We present a hybrid algorithm, which requires only • an approximate model, • a small number of real-life trials. • Resulting policy is (locally) near-optimal. • Experiments on flight simulator and real RC car.

  3. Reinforcement learning formalism • Markov Decision Process (MDP) • M = (S, A, T, H, s0, R ). • S = n (continuous state space) • Time varying, deterministic dynamics • T = { ft : S x A!S, t = 0,…,H}. • Goal: find policy  : S!A, that maximizes • U() = E [R (st) |  ]. • Focus: task of trajectory following. H t=0

  4. Motivating Example • Student-driver learning to make a 90 degree right turn • Only a few trials needed. • No accurate model. • Student-driver has access to: • Real-life trial. • Crude model. • Result: good policy gradient estimate.

  5. Algorithm Idea • Input to algorithm: approximate model. • Start by computing the optimal policy according to the model. Real-life trajectory Target trajectory The policy is optimal according to the model, so no improvement is possible based on the model.

  6. Algorithm Idea (2) • Update the model such that it becomes exact for the current policy.

  7. Algorithm Idea (2) • Update the model such that it becomes exact for the current policy.

  8. Algorithm Idea (2) • The updated model perfectly predicts the state sequence obtained under the current policy. • We can use the updated model to find an improved policy.

  9. Algorithm • Find the (locally) optimal policy  for the model. • Execute the current policy  and record the state trajectory. • Update the model such that the new model is exact for the current policy . • Use the new model to compute the policy gradient  and update the policy:  :=  + . • Go back to Step 2. Notes: • The step-size parameter  is determined by a line search. • Instead of the policy gradient, any algorithm that provides a local policy improvement direction can be used. In our experiments we used differential dynamic programming.

  10. Performance Guarantees: Intuition • Exact policy gradient: • Model based policy gradient: Evaluation of derivatives along wrong trajectory Derivative of approximate transition function Our algorithm eliminates one (of two) sources of error.

  11. Performance Guarantees • Let the local policy improvement algorithm be policy gradient. Notes: • These assumptions are insufficient to give the same performance guarantees for model-based RL. • The constant K depends only on the dimensionality of the state, action, and policy (), the horizon H and an upper bound on the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the transition model, the policy and the reward function.

  12. Experiments • We use differential dynamic programming (DDP) to find control policies in the model. • Two Systems: • Flight Simulator RC Car

  13. Flight Simulator Setup • Flight simulator model has 43 parameters (mass, inertia, drag coefficients, lift coefficients etc.). • We generated “approximate models” by randomly perturbing the parameters. • All 4 standard fixed-wing control actions: throttle, ailerons, elevators and rudder. • Our reward function quadratically penalizes for deviation from the desired trajectory.

  14. Flight Simulator Movie

  15. Flight Simulator Results 76% utility improvement over model-based approach desired trajectory model-based controller our algorithm

  16. RC Car Setup • Control actions: throttle and steering. • Low-speed dynamics model with state variables: • Position, velocity, heading, heading rate. • Model estimated from 30 minutes of data.

  17. RC Car: Open-Loop Turn

  18. RC Car: Circle

  19. RC Car: Figure-8 Maneuver

  20. Related Work • Iterative Learning Control: • Uchiyama (1978), Longman et al. (1992), Moore (1993), Horowitz (1993), Bien et al. (1991), Owens et al. (1995), Chen et al. (1997), … • Successful robot control with limited number of trials: • Atkeson and Schaal (1997), Morimoto and Doya (2001). • Robust control theory: • Zhou et al. (1995), Dullerud and Paganini (2000), … • Bagnell et al. (2001), Morimoto and Atkeson (2002), …

  21. Conclusion • We presented an algorithm that uses a crude model and a small number of real-life trials to find a policy that works well in real-life. • Our theoretical results show that----assuming a deterministic setting and assuming a reasonable model----our algorithm returns a policy that is (locally) near-optimal. • Our experiments show that our algorithm can significantly improve on purely model-based RL by using only a small number of real-life trials, even when the true system is not deterministic.

  22. Motivating Example • Student-driver learning to make a 90 degree right turn • Only a few trials needed. • No accurate model. • Key aspects • Real-life trial: shows whether turn is wide or short. • Crude model: turning steering wheel more to the right results in sharper turn, turning steering wheel more to the left results in wider turn. • Result: good policy gradient estimate.

More Related