1. Apprenticeship Learning Pieter Abbeel Stanford University In collaboration with: Andrew Y. Ng, Adam Coates, J. Zico Kolter, Morgan Quigley, Dmitri Dolgov, Sebastian Thrun.

2. Large number of success stories: Handwritten digit recognition Face detection Disease diagnosis … All learn from examples a direct mapping from inputs to outputs. Reinforcement learning / Sequential decision making: Humans still greatly outperform machines. Machine Learning

3. Reinforcement learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Prescribes actions to take Probability distribution over next states given current state and action Describes desirability (how much it costs) to be in a state.

4. Apprenticeship learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Teacher Demonstration (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….)

5. Example task: driving

6. Learning from demonstrations Learn direct mapping from states to actions Assumes controller simplicity. E.g., Pomerleau, 1989; Sammut et al., 1992; Kuniyoshi et al., 1994; Demiris & Hayes, 1994; Amit & Mataric, 2002; Inverse reinforcement learning [Ng & Russell, 2000] Tries to recover the reward function from demonstrations. Inherent ambiguity makes reward function impossible to recover. Apprenticeship learning [Abbeel & Ng, 2004] Exploits reward function structure + provides strong guarantees. Related work since: Ratliff et al., 2006, 2007; Neu & Szepesvari, 2007; Syed & Schapire, 2008.

7. Apprenticeship learning Key desirable properties: Returns controller  with performance guarantee: Short running time. Small number of demonstrations required.

8. Apprenticeship learning algorithm Assume Initialize: pick some controller  0. Iterate for i = 1, 2, … : Make the current best guess for the reward function. Concretely, find the reward function such that the teacher maximally outperforms all previously found controllers. Find optimal optimal controller  i for the current guess of the reward function R w. If, exit the algorithm.

9. Theoretical guarantees

10. Highway driving Input: Driving demonstration Output: Learned behavior The only input to the learning algorithm was the driving demonstration (left panel). No reward function was provided.

11. Parking lot navigation Reward function trades off: curvature, smoothness, distance to obstacles, alignment with principal directions.

12. Reward function trades off 25 features. Learn on training terrain. Test on previously unseen terrain. Quadruped [NIPS 2008]

13. Quadruped on test-board

14. Learn R Apprenticeship learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….)

15. Learn R Apprenticeship learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….)

16. Accurate dynamics model P sa Motivating example Textbook model Specification Accurate dynamics model P sa Collect flight data. Textbook model Specification Learn model from data.  How to fly helicopter for data collection?  How to ensure that entire flight envelope is covered by the data collection process?

17. Learning the dynamics model State-of-the-art: E 3 algorithm, Kearns and Singh (1998,2002). (And its variants/extensions: Kearns and Koller, 1999; Kakade, Kearns and Langford, 2003; Brafman and Tennenholtz, 2002.) Have good model of dynamics? NO “Explore” YES “Exploit”

18. Learning the dynamics model State-of-the-art: E 3 algorithm, Kearns and Singh (2002). (And its variants/extensions: Kearns and Koller, 1999; Kakade, Kearns and Langford, 2003; Brafman and Tennenholtz, 2002.) Have good model of dynamics? NO “Explore” YES “Exploit” Exploration policies are impractical: they do not even try to perform well. Can we avoid explicit exploration and just exploit?

19. Learn P sa Apprenticeship learning of the model Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Autonomous flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….)

20. Here, polynomial is with respect to 1/ , 1/(failure probability), the horizon T, the maximum reward R, the size of the state space. Theoretical guarantees

21. From initial pilot demonstrations, our model/simulator P sa will be accurate for the part of the state space (s,a) visited by the pilot. Our model/simulator will correctly predict the helicopter’s behavior under the pilot’s controller  *. Consequently, there is at least one controller (namely  * ) that looks capable of flying the helicopter well in our simulation. Thus, each time we solve for the optimal controller using the current model/simulator P sa, we will find a controller that successfully flies the helicopter according to P sa. If, on the actual helicopter, this controller fails to fly the helicopter- --despite the model P sa predicting that it should---then it must be visiting parts of the state space that are inaccurately modeled. Hence, we get useful training data to improve the model. This can happen only a small number of times. Model Learning: Proof Idea

22. Learning the dynamics model Exploiting structure from physics Explicitly encode gravity, inertia. Estimate remaining dynamics from data. Lagged learning criterion Maximize prediction accuracy of the simulator over time scales relevant for control (vs. digital integration time scale). Similar to machine learning: discriminative vs. generative. [Abbeel et al. {NIPS 2005, NIPS 2006}]

23. Autonomous nose-in funnel

24. Related work Bagnell & Schneider, 2001; LaCivita et al., 2006; Ng et al., 2004a; Roberts et al., 2003; Saripalli et al., 2003.; Ng et al., 2004b; Gavrilets, Martinos, Mettler and Feron, 2002. Maneuvers presented here are significantly more difficult than those flown by any other autonomous helicopter.

25. Learn P sa Apprenticeship learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Autonomous flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Model predictive control Receding horizon differential dynamic programming Learn R

26. Learn P sa Learn R Learn R Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Autonomous flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Applications: Apprenticeship learning: summary

27. Demonstrations

28. Learned reward (trajectory)

30. Applications: Autonomous helicopters to assist in wildland fire fighting. Fixed-wing formation flight: Estimated fuel savings for three aircraft formation: 20%. Learning from demonstrations only scratches the surface of how humans learn (and teach). Safe autonomous learning. More general advice taking. Current and future work

32. Thank you.

33. Apprenticeship Learning via Inverse Reinforcement Learning, Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. In Proc. ICML, 2004. Learning First Order Markov Models for Control, Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. In NIPS 17, 2005. Exploration and Apprenticeship Learning in Reinforcement Learning, Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. In Proc. ICML, 2005. Modeling Vehicular Dynamics, with Application to Modeling Helicopters, Pieter Abbeel, Varun Ganapathi and Andrew Y. Ng. In NIPS 18, 2006. Using Inaccurate Models in Reinforcement Learning, Pieter Abbeel, Morgan Quigley and Andrew Y. Ng. In Proc. ICML, 2006. An Application of Reinforcement Learning to Aerobatic Helicopter Flight, Pieter Abbeel, Adam Coates, Morgan Quigley and Andrew Y. Ng. In NIPS 19, 2007. Hierarchical Apprenticeship Learning with Application to Quadruped Locomotion, J. Zico Kolter, Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y. Ng. In NIPS 20, 2008.

34. Airshow accuracy

35. Chaos

36. Tic-toc

37. Applications: Autonomous helicopters to assist in wildland fire fighting. Fixed-wing formation flight: Estimated fuel savings for three aircraft formation: 20%. Learning from demonstrations only scratches the surface of how humans learn (and teach). Safe autonomous learning. More general advice taking. Current and future work

38. Full Inverse RL Algorithm Initialize: pick some arbitrary reward weights w. For i = 1, 2, … RL step: Compute optimal controller  i for the current estimate of the reward function R w. Inverse RL step: Re-estimate the reward function R w : If, exit the algorithm.

39. Helicopter dynamics model in auto

40. Parking lot navigation---experiments

41. Helicopter inverse RL: experiments

43. Auto-rotation descent

44. Learn P sa Apprenticeship learning Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Autonomous flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Teacher’s flight (s 0, a 0, s 1, a 1, ….) Learn R

45. Input to algorithm: approximate model. Start by computing the optimal controller according to the model. Algorithm Idea Real-life trajectory Target trajectory

46. Algorithm Idea (2) Update the model such that it becomes exact for the current controller.

47. Algorithm Idea (2) Update the model such that it becomes exact for the current controller.

48. Algorithm Idea (2)

49. Performance Guarantees

51. First trial. (Model-based controller.) After learning. (10 iterations)

52. Performance guarantee intuition Intuition by example: Let If the returned controller  satisfies Then no matter what the values of and are, the controller  performs as well as the teacher’s controller  *.

53. Summary Teacher: human pilot flight (a 1, s 1, a 2, s 2, a 3, s 3, ….) Learn P sa (a 1, s 1, a 2, s 2, a 3, s 3, ….) Autonomous flight Learn P sa Dynamics Model P sa Reward Function R Reinforcement Learning Controller  Learn R Improve  When given a demonstration: Automatically learn reward function, rather than (time- consumingly) hand-engineer it. Unlike exploration methods, our algorithm concentrates on the task of interest, and always tries to fly as well as possible. High performance control with crude model + small number of trials.

54. Perfect demonstrations are extremely hard to obtain. Multiple trajectory demonstrations: Every demonstration is a noisy instantiation of the intended trajectory. Noise model captures (among others): Position drift. Time warping. If different demonstrations are suboptimal in different ways, they can capture the “intended” trajectory implicitly. [Related work: Atkeson & Schaal, 1997.] Reward: Intended trajectory

55. Preliminaries: reinforcement learning. Apprenticeship learning algorithms. Experimental results on various robotic platforms. Outline

56. Reinforcement learning (RL) System Dynamics P sa state s 0 s1s1 System dynamics P sa … System Dynamics P sa s T-1 sTsT s2s2 a0a0 a1a1 a T-1 reward R(s 0 ) R(s 2 )R(s T-1 )R(s 1 )R(s T )+++…++ Goal: Pick actions over time so as to maximize the expected score: E[ R ( s 0 ) + R ( s 1 ) + … + R ( s T )] Solution: controller  which specifies an action for each possible state for all times t = 0, 1, …, T -1.

57. Model-based reinforcement learning Run reinforcement learning algorithm in simulator. controller 

58. Theorem. Note the sample complexity does not depend on the policy complexity. Sample complexity

59. Probabilistic graphical model for multiple demonstrations

60. Full model

61. Step 1: find the time-warping, and the distributional parameters We use EM, and dynamic time warping to alternatingly optimize over the different parameters. Step 2: find the intended trajectory Learning algorithm

62. Algorithms such as E 3 (Kearns and Singh, 2002) learn the dynamics by using exploration policies, which are dangerous/impractical for many systems. Our algorithm Initializes model from a demonstration. Repeatedly executes “exploitation policies'' that try to maximize rewards. Provably achieves near-optimal performance (compared to teacher). Machine learning theory: Complicated non-IID sample generating process. Standard learning theory bounds not applicable. Proof uses martingale construction over relative losses. Apprenticeship learning for the dynamics model [ICML 2005]

63. Accuracy

64. Modeling extremely complex: Our dynamics model state: Position, orientation, velocity, angular rate. True state: Air (!), head-speed, servos, deformation, etc. Key observation: In the vicinity of a specific point along a specific trajectory, these unknown state variables tend to take on similar values. Non-stationary maneuvers

65. Example: z-acceleration

66. 1. Time align trajectories. 2. Learn locally weighted models in the vicinity of the trajectory. W(t’) = exp(- (t – t’) 2 /  2 ) Local model learning algorithm

67. Input to algorithm: Teacher demonstration. Approximate model. Algorithm Idea w/Teacher Teacher trajectory Trajectory predicted by simulator/model for same inputs [ICML 2006]

68. Algorithm Idea w/Teacher (2) Update the model such that it becomes exact for the demonstration.

69. Algorithm Idea w/Teacher (2) Update the model such that it becomes exact for the demonstration.

70. Algorithm Idea w/Teacher (2) The updated model perfectly predicts the state sequence obtained during the demonstration. We can use the updated model to find a feedback Controller.

71. 1. Record teacher’s demonstration s 0, s 1, … 2. Update the (crude) model/simulator to be exact for the teacher’s demonstration by adding appropriate time biases for each time step. 3. Return the policy  that is optimal according to the updated model/simulator. Algorithm w/Teacher

72. Theorem. Performance guarantees w/Teacher

73. Algorithm [iterative] 1. Record teacher’s demonstration s 0, s 1, … 2. Update the (crude) model/simulator to be exact for the teacher’s demonstration by adding appropriate time biases for each time step. 3. Find the policy  that is optimal according to the updated model/simulator. 4. Execute the policy  and record the state trajectory. 5. Update the (crude) model/simulator to be exact along the trajectory obtained with the policy . 6. Go to step 3. Related work: iterative learning control (ILC).

74. Algorithm 1.Find the (locally) optimal policy   for the model. 2.Execute the current policy   and record the state trajectory. 3.Update the model such that the new model is exact for the current policy  . 4.Use the new model to compute the policy gradient  and update the policy:  :=  +   5.Go back to Step 2. Notes: The step-size parameter  is determined by a line search. Instead of the policy gradient, any algorithm that provides a local policy improvement direction can be used. In our experiments we used differential dynamic programming.

75. Performance Guarantees: Intuition Exact policy gradient: Model based policy gradient: Evaluation of derivatives along wrong trajectory Derivative of approximate transition function Our algorithm eliminates one (of two) sources of error.

76. Algorithm 1.Find the (locally) optimal policy   for the model. 2.Execute the current policy   and record the state trajectory. 3.Update the model such that the new model is exact for the current policy  . 4.Use the new model to compute the policy gradient  and update the policy:  :=  +   5.Go back to Step 2. Related work: Iterative learning control.

77. Future work

78. Acknowledgments J. Zico Kolter, Andrew Y. Ng Morgan Quigley, Andrew Y. Ng Andrew Y. Ng Adam Coates, Morgan Quigley, Andrew Y. Ng

79. RC Car: Circle

80. RC Car: Figure-8 Maneuver

81. Teacher demonstration for quadruped Full teacher demonstration = sequence of footsteps. Much simpler to “teach hierarchically”: Specify a body path. Specify best footstep in a small area.

82. Hierarchical inverse RL Quadratic programming problem (QP): quadratic objective, linear constraints. Constraint generation for path constraints.

83. Training: Have quadruped walk straight across a fairly simple board with fixed-spaced foot placements. Around each foot placement: label the best foot placement. (about 20 labels) Label the best body-path for the training board. Use our hierarchical inverse RL algorithm to learn a reward function from the footstep and path labels. Test on hold-out terrains: Plan a path across the test-board. Experimental setup

84. Task: Hover at a specific point. Initial state: tens of meters away from target. Reward function trades off: Position accuracy, Orientation accuracy, Zero velocity, Zero angular rate, … (11 features total) Helicopter Flight

85. Learned from “careful” pilot

86. Learned from “aggressive” pilot

87. More driving examples In each video, the left sub-panel shows a demonstration of a different driving “style”, and the right sub-panel shows the behavior learned from watching the demonstration. Driving demonstration Learned behavior