Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Robot Learning as an Empirical Science: Best Practices for Policy Evaluation

Hadas Kress-Gazit, Kunimatsu Hashimoto, Naveen Kuppuswamy, Paarth Shah, Phoebe Horgan, Gordon Richardson, Siyuan Feng, Benjamin Burchfiel

TL;DR

This paper argues that robot-learning evaluation must move beyond sole reliance on success rate to achieve reproducible, informative insights. It proposes a comprehensive best-practices framework encompassing explicit success criteria, controlled initial conditions, and interleaved AB testing; it introduces semantic metrics (rubrics and Signal Temporal Logic) and performance measures (STL robustness, SPARC smoothness) to capture task nuance. The authors stress rigorous reporting of experimental parameters, statistical analyses (including Bayesian methods), and detailed failure-mode descriptions, illustrated with physical manipulation tasks and an exemplar evaluation report. The guidelines aim to improve rigor, comparability, and understanding of failure modes, with applicability to both physical experiments and simulations and a push toward open evaluation data.

Abstract

The robot learning community has made great strides in recent years, proposing new architectures and showcasing impressive new capabilities; however, the dominant metric used in the literature, especially for physical experiments, is "success rate", i.e. the percentage of runs that were successful. Furthermore, it is common for papers to report this number with little to no information regarding the number of runs, the initial conditions, and the success criteria, little to no narrative description of the behaviors and failures observed, and little to no statistical analysis of the findings. In this paper we argue that to move the field forward, researchers should provide a nuanced evaluation of their methods, especially when evaluating and comparing learned policies on physical robots. To do so, we propose best practices for future evaluations: explicitly reporting the experimental conditions, evaluating several metrics designed to complement success rate, conducting statistical analysis, and adding a qualitative description of failures modes. We illustrate these through an evaluation on physical robots of several learned policies for manipulation tasks.

Robot Learning as an Empirical Science: Best Practices for Policy Evaluation

TL;DR

This paper argues that robot-learning evaluation must move beyond sole reliance on success rate to achieve reproducible, informative insights. It proposes a comprehensive best-practices framework encompassing explicit success criteria, controlled initial conditions, and interleaved AB testing; it introduces semantic metrics (rubrics and Signal Temporal Logic) and performance measures (STL robustness, SPARC smoothness) to capture task nuance. The authors stress rigorous reporting of experimental parameters, statistical analyses (including Bayesian methods), and detailed failure-mode descriptions, illustrated with physical manipulation tasks and an exemplar evaluation report. The guidelines aim to improve rigor, comparability, and understanding of failure modes, with applicability to both physical experiments and simulations and a push toward open evaluation data.

Abstract

The robot learning community has made great strides in recent years, proposing new architectures and showcasing impressive new capabilities; however, the dominant metric used in the literature, especially for physical experiments, is "success rate", i.e. the percentage of runs that were successful. Furthermore, it is common for papers to report this number with little to no information regarding the number of runs, the initial conditions, and the success criteria, little to no narrative description of the behaviors and failures observed, and little to no statistical analysis of the findings. In this paper we argue that to move the field forward, researchers should provide a nuanced evaluation of their methods, especially when evaluating and comparing learned policies on physical robots. To do so, we propose best practices for future evaluations: explicitly reporting the experimental conditions, evaluating several metrics designed to complement success rate, conducting statistical analysis, and adding a qualitative description of failures modes. We illustrate these through an evaluation on physical robots of several learned policies for manipulation tasks.
Paper Structure (25 sections, 4 equations, 11 figures, 2 tables)

This paper contains 25 sections, 4 equations, 11 figures, 2 tables.

Figures (11)

  • Figure 1: Tasks and robots
  • Figure 2: Initial conditions (ICs) for Example \ref{['exm:init']}; Policy A on the left and Policy B on the right. Each row represents 5 evaluations with the same IC; the ICs are numbered 0-4 from the top row. The color of the text above each photo indicates the success; green is a successful rollout, red is a failure. We can see that the IC are visually consistent. Furthermore, for ICs 0,1,2 both policies always succeed, while for IC 3 they mostly fail.
  • Figure 3: Robustness metric for Example \ref{['exm:bowlSTL']} for the 6 policies (Y-axis). There are two types of behaviors; the points around 80 indicate that the robot did not make contact with the bowl, the points around 0 indicate that the robot did. In \ref{['fig:STLzoom']} we can see which trajectories violated the STL formula and by how much - points with negative robustness represent rollouts for which during contact the end effector z-coordinate was smaller than 0.25. We added a gray line at zero to help visualize.
  • Figure 4: SPARC data for Bowl (Example \ref{['exm:bowlSPARC']}). We consider rollouts in which the robot makes contact with the bowl and we calculate SPARC for the pre-contact trajectory. Each data point corresponds to a rollout. Different policies are color coded. More negative SPARC value corresponds to less smooth motion.
  • Figure 5: Initial location of the bowl in Bowl
  • ...and 6 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (8)

  • Example 1: Effect of initial condition
  • Example 2: Detecting distribution shift by matching initial conditions
  • Example 3: Pancake partial success
  • Example 4: push bowl
  • Example 5: Bowl SPARC
  • Example 6: Bayesian Analysis
  • Example 7: Failure description
  • Example 8: Visualizing initial condition