analiza aiqbench
This study provides a rigorous quantitative analysis of centralised versus distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning for controlling soft robotic arms, revealing distinct trade-offs in training time, sample efficiency, and robustness based on system complexity. The findings offer actionable guidance for researchers designing sim-to-real transfer pipelines, indicating that distributed architectures become advantageous only when the number of controlled sections exceeds four.
A Quantitative Comparison of Centralised and Distributed Reinforcement Learning-Based Control for Soft Robotic Arms
arXiv:2511.02192v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper presents a quantitative comparison between centralised and distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) architectures for controlling a soft robotic arm modelled as a Cosserat rod in simulation. Using PyElastica and the OpenAI Gym interface, we train both a global Proximal Policy Optimisation (PPO) controller and a Multi-Agent PPO (MAPPO) under identical budgets. Both approaches are based on the arm having $n$ number of controlled sections. The study systematically varies $n$ and evaluates the performance of the arm to reach a fixed target in three scenarios: default baseline condition, recovery from external disturbance, and adaptation to actuator failure. Quantitative metrics used for the evaluation are mean action magnitude, mean final distance, mean episode length, and success rate. The results show that there are no significant benefits of the distributed policy when the number of controlled sections $n\le4$. In very simple systems, when $n\le2$, the centralised policy outperforms the distributed one. When $n$ increases to $4< n\le 12$, the distributed policy shows a high sample efficiency. In these systems, distributed policy promotes a stronger success rate, resilience, and robustness under local observability and yields faster convergence given the same sample size. However, centralised policies achieve much higher time efficiency during training as it takes much less time to train the same size of samples. These findings highlight the trade-offs between centralised and distributed policy in reinforcement learning-based control for soft robotic systems and provide actionable design guidance for future sim-to-real transfer in soft rod-like manipulators.
Abstract:This paper presents a quantitative comparison between centralised and distributed multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) architectures for controlling a soft robotic arm modelled as a Cosserat rod in simulation. Using PyElastica and the OpenAI Gym interface, we train both a global Proximal Policy Optimisation (PPO) controller and a Multi-Agent PPO (MAPPO) under identical budgets. Both approaches are based on the arm having $n$ number of controlled sections. The study systematically varies $n$ and evaluates the performance of the arm to reach a fixed target in three scenarios: default baseline condition, recovery from external disturbance, and adaptation to actuator failure. Quantitative metrics used for the evaluation are mean action magnitude, mean final distance, mean episode length, and success rate. The results show that there are no significant benefits of the distributed policy when the number of controlled sections $n\le4$. In very simple systems, when $n\le2$, the centralised policy outperforms the distributed one. When $n$ increases to $4< n\le 12$, the distributed policy shows a high sample efficiency. In these systems, distributed policy promotes a stronger success rate, resilience, and robustness under local observability and yields faster convergence given the same sample size. However, centralised policies achieve much higher time efficiency during training as it takes much less time to train the same size of samples. These findings highlight the trade-offs between centralised and distributed policy in reinforcement learning-based control for soft robotic systems and provide actionable design guidance for future sim-to-real transfer in soft rod-like manipulators.
Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2511.02192 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2511.02192v3 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.02192 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 335 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · 23 sept. 2026

Improving CoT Monitorability of Evaluation Awareness via Verbalization Training
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · 25 iul. 2026