Detecting Silent Faults at the Environment-Trainer Boundary in Reinforcement Learning

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

Robot reinforcement learning increasingly runs environments outside the trainer: in another process, on another machine, in another language. Many faults at this boundary raise no error. We make the boundary a wire protocol and ask what notices a fault in it. On Pendulum, HalfCheetah, Hopper and a 7-joint arm (Pusher), we injected up to 23 faults into what crosses the wire and 2 into the trainer's log, from one value to every value. Unless every value was wrong, a learning-curve threshold caught at most one run in ten, and a comparison with ten fault-free seeds at most 21%. A clean evaluation of all 1,060 final policies agreed with the curves: of the 728 boundary-fault runs both curve checks passed, 723 scored no more than three standard deviations below fault-free seeds, though nearly all ended on other weights and, for reward faults, logged other returns. Checks of the run itself, not of its outcome, saw every fault. A step ledger kept on both sides and compared step by step caught and located every fault that crossed, on Pendulum, Hopper and Pusher on one machine and on Pendulum across two, with no fault-free run and, on Pendulum, a median 3% more training time. An episode record kept at the environment caught the faults in the trainer's log. We list such faults found in practice, in Gymnasium 1.3 and our own code and, reported by others, in five multi-agent libraries, and recommend a step ledger and episode counts kept at the environment.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments