aihub.org
 

Maintaining the illusion of reality: transfer in RL by keeping agents in the DARC

by
10 August 2020



share this:
RL-DARC

By Benjamin Eysenbach

Reinforcement learning (RL) is often touted as a promising approach for costly and risk-sensitive applications, yet practicing and learning in those domains directly is expensive. It costs time (e.g., OpenAI’s Dota2 project used 10,000 years of experience), it costs money (e.g., “inexpensive” robotic arms used in research typically cost 10,000 to 30,000 dollars), and it could even be dangerous to humans. How can an intelligent agent learn to solve tasks in environments in which it cannot practice?

For many tasks, such as assistive robotics and self-driving cars, we may have access to a different practice area, which we will call the source domain. While the source domain has different dynamics than the target domain, experience in the source domain is much cheaper to collect. For example, a computer simulation of the real world can run much faster than real time, collecting (say) a year of experience in an hour; it is much cheaper to simulate 1,000 robot manipulators in parallel than to maintain 1,000 robot manipulators. The source domain need not be a simulator, but rather could be any practice facility, such as a farm of robot arms, a playpen for learning to walk, or a controlled testing facility for self-driving vehicles. Our aim is to learn a policy in the source domain that will achieve high reward in a different target domain, using a limited amount of experience from the target domain.

This problem (domain adaptation for RL) is challenging because the source and target domains might have different physics and appearances. These differences mean that strategies that work well in the practice facility often don’t transfer to the target domain. For example, a good approach to driving a car around a dry racetrack (the source domain) may entail aggressive acceleration and cutting corners. If the target domain is an icy, public road, this approach may cause the car to skid off the road or hit oncoming traffic. While prior work has thoroughly studied the domain adaptation of appearance in RL [Bousmalis 2017, Ganin 2016, Higgins 2017], it ignores the domain adaptation of the physics.

Method

Our approach stems from the idea that the agent’s experience in the source domain should look similar to its experience in the target domain. We can achieve this goal by compensating for the difference in dynamics by modifying the reward function. The figure below above shows an illustrative example, where the real world (left) contains an obstacle that is unmodeled in the simulator (center).  Our method automatically learns to assign a high penalty when the agent takes actions in the simulator that would not be possible in the real world. For this example, our method puts a high penalty (red region) in the middle of the practice facility, as transitions through that region will not be possible in the real world. In effect, the agent is penalized for transitions that would indicate that the agent is interacting with the source domain, rather than the target domain.

How can a robot solve tasks in a target domain (left) that is different from the source domain where it practices (center)? Our method modifies the reward function to force the agent to learn behaviors that will be feasible in the target domain.

Formally, we will search for a policy whose behavior in the source domain both receives high reward and has high likelihood under the target domain dynamics. It turns out that this objective can be written as a combination of the standard MaxEnt RL objective [Ziebart 2010] together with a reward correction,

    \[\max_\pi \mathbb{E}_\pi\bigg[\sum_t \underbrace{r(s_t, a_t) + \mathcal{H}_\pi[a_t \mid s_t]}_{\text{MaxEnt RL}} + \underbrace{\Delta r(s_t, a_t, s_{t+1})}_{\text{reward correction}} \bigg],\]

where the reward correction \Delta r measures the discrepancy between the dynamics in the source domain (p_source) and the target domain (p_target):

    \[\Delta r(s_t, a_t, s_{t+1}) = \log p_\text{target}(s_{t+1} \mid s_t, a_t) - \log p_\text{source}(s_{t+1} \mid s_t, a_t).\]

The combined objective has a number of intuitive interpretations:

  • Viewing the next state shouldn’t give you any additional information about whether you are in the source or target domain.
  • You should maximize reward, subject to the constraint that physics seen by your robot in the source domain looks like the physics of the target domain.
  • Our method aims to acquire a policy that remains ignorant of whether it is interacting with the simulator or the real world.

While \Delta r is defined in terms of dynamics, it turns out that we can estimate \Delta r without learning a dynamics model. Applying Bayes’ Rule, we can rewrite \Delta r as

The orange terms can be estimated by learning a classifier that distinguishes source vs target given (s, a, s'); the blue terms can be estimated using a classifier that distinguishes source vs target given (s, a). We therefore call our method Domain Adaptation with Rewards from Classifiers, or DARC. While we do require a limited amount of experience from the target domain to learn these classifiers, our experiments show that learning a classifier (which has a binary output) is easier than learning a dynamics model (which must predict a high-dimensional output). DARC is simple to implement on top of any MaxEnt RL algorithm (e.g., on-policy, off-policy, and model-based).

Connection with Observation Adaptation: Now that we’ve introduced the DARC algorithm, we pause briefly to highlight the relationship between domain adaptation of dynamics versus observations. Consider tasks where the state s_t \triangleq (z_t, o_t) is a combination of the system latent state z_t (e.g., the poses of all objects in a scene) and an observation o_t (e.g., a camera observation). We will define q(o_t \mid z_t) and p(o_t \mid z_t) as the observation models for the source and target domains (e.g., as defined by the rendering engine or the camera model). In this special case, we can write \Delta r as the sum of two terms, which correspond to observation adaptation and dynamics adaptation:

    \[\begin{aligned} \Delta r(s_t, a_t, s_{t+1}) =& \underbrace{\log p_{\text{target}}(o_t \mid z_t) - \log p_{\text{source}}(o_t \mid z_t)}_{\text{Observation Adaptation}} \\ & + \underbrace{\log p_{\text{target}}(z_{t+1} \mid z_t, a_t) - \log p_{\text{source}}(z_{t+1} \mid z_t, a_t)}_{\text{Dynamics Adaptation}} . \end{aligned}\]

While prior methods excel at addressing observation adaptation [Bousmalis 2017, Gamrian 2019, Fernando 2013, Hoffman 2016, Wulfmeier 2017], only our method captures both the adaptation and dynamics terms.

Experiments

We apply DARC to tasks where the robot is either broken in the target domain and where new obstacles are added in the target domain. Note that naïvely ignoring the shift in dynamics (green dashed line) performs quite poorly, and learning an explicit dynamics model (pink line) learns more slowly than our method.

We applied DARC to a number of simulated robotics tasks. On some tasks, we crippled one of the robot’s joints in the target domain, so the robot has to use practice on the fully-functional robot (source domain) to learn a policy that will work well on the broken robot. In another task, the target domain includes a new obstacle, so the robot has to use practice in a source domain (without the obstacle) to learn a policy that will avoid the obstacle. We show the results of this experiment in the figure above, plotting the reward on the target domain as a function of the number of transitions in the target domain. On all tasks, the policy learned in the simulator does not transfer to the target domain. On three of the four tasks our method matches (or even surpasses) the asymptotic performance of doing RL on the target domain, despite never doing RL on experience from the target domain, and despite observing 5 – 10x less experience from the target domain. However, as we scale to more complex tasks (“broken ant” and “half cheetah obstacle”), we observe that all baselines perform poorly.

Our method accounts for domain shift in the termination condition. In this experiment, the source domain includes safeguards that “catch” the robot and end the episode if the robot starts to fall; the target domain does not contain such safeguards. As shown on the right, our method learns to avoid taking actions that would trigger the safeguards.

Our final experiment showed how DARC can be used for safety. In many applications, robots have freedom to practice in a safe and cushioned practice facility, where they are preemptively stopped when they try to take unsafe actions. However, the real world may not contain such safeguards, so we want our robots to avoid relying on these safeguards. To study this setting, we used a simulated human robot. In the source domain, the episode terminates if the agent starts to fall; the target domain does not include this safeguard. As shown in the plot above, our method learns to remain standing for nearly the entire episode, while baselines fall almost immediately. While DARC was not designed as a method for safe RL [Tamar 2013, Achaim 2017, Berkenkamp 2017, Eysenbach 2017], this experiment suggests that safety may emerge automatically from DARC, without any manual reward function design.

Conclusion

The main idea of this project is that agents should avoid taking actions that would reveal whether they are in the source domain or the target domain. Even when practicing in a simulator, the agent should attempt to maintain the illusion that it is in the real world. The main limitation of our method is that the source dynamics must be sufficiently stochastic, an assumption that can usually be satisfied by adding noise to the dynamics, or ensembling a collection of sources.

For more information, check out the paper or code!

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Swapnil Asawa, Shreyas Chaudhari, Sergey Levine, Misha Khodak, Paul Michel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov for feedback on this post.

This article was initially published on the ML@CMU blog and appears here with the authors’ permission.




ML@CMU




            AIhub is supported by:


Related posts :



Eleven new NSF artificial intelligence research institutes announced

USA National Science Foundation (NSF) partnerships expand National AI Research Institutes to 40 states.
30 July 2021, by

AIhub monthly digest: July 2021 – ICML, protein folding for all, and AI Song Contest winner announced

Welcome to our monthly digest, where you can catch up with AI research, events and news from the month past.
29 July 2021, by

Use of AI to fight COVID-19 risks harming “disadvantaged groups”, experts warn

Rapid deployment of AI to tackle coronavirus must still go through ethical checks and balances.
28 July 2021, by


















©2021 - Association for the Understanding of Artificial Intelligence














©2021 - Association for the Understanding of Artificial Intelligence- aihub.org