arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2107.09232

Using reinforcement learning to autonomously identify sources of error for agents in group missions

Abstract

When agents swarm to execute a mission, some of them frequently exhibit sudden failure, as observed from the command base. It is generally difficult to determine whether a failure is caused by actuators (hypothesis, $h_a$) or sensors (hypothesis, $h_s$) by solely relying on the communication between the command base and concerning agent. However, by instigating collusion between the agents, the cause of failure can be identified; in other words, we expect to detect corresponding displacements for $h_a$ but not for $h_s$. In this study, we considered the question as to whether artificial intelligence can autonomously generate an action plan $\boldsymbol{g}$ to pinpoint the cause as aforedescribed. Because the expected response to $\boldsymbol{g}$ generally depends upon the adopted hypothesis [let the difference be denoted by $D(\boldsymbol{g})$], a formulation that uses $D\left(\boldsymbol{g}\right)$ to pinpoint the cause can be made. Although a $\boldsymbol{g}^*$ that maximizes $D(\boldsymbol{g})$ would be a suitable action plan for this task, such an optimization is difficult to achieve using the conventional gradient method, as $D(\boldsymbol{g})$ becomes nonzero in rare events such as collisions with other agents, and most swarm actions $\boldsymbol{g}$ give $D(\boldsymbol{g})=0$. In other words, throughout almost the entire space of $\boldsymbol{g}$, $D(\boldsymbol{g})$ has zero gradient, and the gradient method is not applicable. To overcome this problem, we formulated an action plan using Q-table reinforcement learning. Surprisingly, the optimal action plan generated via reinforcement learning presented a human-like solution to pinpoint the problem by colliding other agents with the failed agent. Using this simple prototype, we demonstrated the potential of applying Q-table reinforcement learning methods to plan autonomous actions to pinpoint the causes of failure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Keishu Utimula, Ken-taro Hayaschi, Trevor J. Bihl, Kenta Hongo, Ryo Maezono. 2021-07-20. Using reinforcement learning to autonomously identify sources of error for agents in group missions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09232

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO