Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

A benchmark of 14 curriculum and domain-randomisation methods on five quadruped robots in MuJoCo finds no single method that leads everywhere. Many top results come from easy or low-difficulty training levels, so reported gains may partly reflect the easy starting distribution rather than the curriculum itself. For RL and robotics readers, the per-robot comparisons and held-out terrain results are the useful part, since the in-distribution leader is often not the leader on unseen terrain.
Source coveringarXiv

Is It the Curriculum or Just the Easy Start? Benchmarking Unsupervised Environment Design on Quadrupeds

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.40364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Unsupervised environment design (UED) methods such as PLR, ACCEL, SFL and PAIRED are compared mostly on 2D mazes, grid worlds and BipedalWalker, while terrain curricula for legged robots are hand-designed and evaluated against a few baselines. We present a benchmark that runs fourteen UED, domain-randomisation and robotics curricula under one protocol on five 3D quadrupeds in MuJoCo MJX: the closed-chain W01-TEK and the open-chain Unitree Go1 and Go2, Google Barkour vB and Boston Dynamics Spot. Levels are vectors of eight interpretable terrain parameters, and all curricula drive the same PPO student at matched environment-step budgets. The evaluation reports success on random and held-out structured terrains, interquartile means with stratified bootstrap intervals, capability envelopes and a level-by-level domination comparison. We compare methods within each robot and report, per level set, the top group of methods not significantly below the best. No method is in the top group on every robot and level set. Methods with easy or low-difficulty training levels, curated or not, fill the top groups on in-distribution random levels of Go1 and Barkour, and of W01-TEK apart from PAIRED+BiBC. The success-driven terrain curriculum from legged-robot practice is in a top group most often, domain randomisation on uniform levels in none, and PAIRED in none outside Spot, where the fourteen methods lie within 3.8 points on random levels of difficulty 0.25. On three robots the leader on in-distribution random levels is not the leader on held-out terrain. We collect the results into a per-robot guide to choosing a curriculum.

Title:Is It the Curriculum or Just the Easy Start? Benchmarking Unsupervised Environment Design on Quadrupeds

Abstract:Unsupervised environment design (UED) methods such as PLR, ACCEL, SFL and PAIRED are compared mostly on 2D mazes, grid worlds and BipedalWalker, while terrain curricula for legged robots are hand-designed and evaluated against a few baselines. We present a benchmark that runs fourteen UED, domain-randomisation and robotics curricula under one protocol on five 3D quadrupeds in MuJoCo MJX: the closed-chain W01-TEK and the open-chain Unitree Go1 and Go2, Google Barkour vB and Boston Dynamics Spot. Levels are vectors of eight interpretable terrain parameters, and all curricula drive the same PPO student at matched environment-step budgets. The evaluation reports success on random and held-out structured terrains, interquartile means with stratified bootstrap intervals, capability envelopes and a level-by-level domination comparison. We compare methods within each robot and report, per level set, the top group of methods not significantly below the best. No method is in the top group on every robot and level set. Methods with easy or low-difficulty training levels, curated or not, fill the top groups on in-distribution random levels of Go1 and Barkour, and of W01-TEK apart from PAIRED+BiBC. The success-driven terrain curriculum from legged-robot practice is in a top group most often, domain randomisation on uniform levels in none, and PAIRED in none outside Spot, where the fourteen methods lie within 3.8 points on random levels of difficulty 0.25. On three robots the leader on in-distribution random levels is not the leader on held-out terrain. We collect the results into a per-robot guide to choosing a curriculum.

22 pages, 10 figures. Code, level space and evaluation suite: this https URL

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2610.40364 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.40364v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.40364 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 373 words

Related coverage