mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Reducing the Cost of Cycle-Time Tuning for Real-World Policy Optimization

arXiv 2305.05760 ↗First posted 9 May 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.ROcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Continuous-time reinforcement learning tasks commonly use discrete steps of fixed cycle times for actions. As practitioners need to choose the action-cycle time for a given task, a significant concern is whether the hyper-parameters of the learning algorithm need to be re-tuned for each choice of the cycle time, which is prohibitive for real-world robotics. In this work, we investigate the widely-used baseline hyper-parameter values of two policy gradient algorithms -- PPO and SAC -- across different cycle times. Using a benchmark task where the baseline hyper-parameters of both algorithms were shown to work well, we reveal that when a cycle time different than the task default is chosen, PPO with baseline hyper-parameters fails to learn. Moreover, both PPO and SAC with their baseline hyper-parameters perform substantially worse than their tuned values for each cycle time. We propose novel approaches for setting these hyper-parameters based on the cycle time. In our experiments on simulated and real-world robotic tasks, the proposed approaches performed at least as well as the baseline hyper-parameters, with significantly better performance for most choices of the cycle time, and did not result in learning failure for any cycle time. Hyper-parameter tuning still remains a significant barrier for real-world robotics, as our approaches require some initial tuning on a new task, even though it is negligible compared to an extensive tuning for each cycle time. Our approach requires no additional tuning after the cycle time is changed for a given task and is a step toward avoiding extensive and costly hyper-parameter tuning for real-world policy optimization.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2023.

Builds on

17 of 25 references.

References · 17

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  3. 2018Addressing Function Approximation Error in Actor-Critic Methodscited by 2,417
  4. 2016OpenAI Gymcited by 1,736
  5. 2018Soft Actor-Critic Algorithms and Applicationscited by 1,240
  6. 2019Solving Rubik's Cube with a Robot Handcited by 734
  7. 2020dm_control: Software and Tasks for Continuous Controlcited by 375
  8. 2018Sim-to-Real: Learning Agile Locomotion For Quadruped Robotscited by 319
  9. 2018Learning to Walk via Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 158
  10. 2021Reset-Free Reinforcement Learning via Multi-Task Learning: Learning Dexterous Manipulation Behaviors without Human Interventioncited by 95
  11. 2018Benchmarking Reinforcement Learning Algorithms on Real-World Robotscited by 65
  12. 2019Making Deep Q-learning methods robust to time discretizationcited by 58
5 more
  1. 2019Real-Time Reinforcement Learningcited by 40
  2. 2020Delay-Aware Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Controlcited by 34
  3. 2018At Human Speed: Deep Reinforcement Learning with Action Delaycited by 26
  4. 2018Reactive Reinforcement Learning in Asynchronous Environmentscited by 12
  5. 2019SLM Lab: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Modular Software Framework for Reproducible Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4.

4 papers.