End-to-End Robot Navigation With RL for Sparse Reward Robustness

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current robot navigation methods require tuning for each new robot and environment, and are often not robust due to reliance on high-level motion primitives and near-perfect sensor observations, leading to inaccuracies and non-robust policies, especially when rewards are sparse.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of reinforcement learning to train a policy network that can perform robot navigation tasks, such as point-to-point and path following, using an end-to-end policy network that processes noisy sensor data to generate control outputs, with automated reward shaping and network optimization to achieve robustness and accuracy.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If reinforcement learning is used with sparse rewards based on the true objective, then the robot can learn navigation policies, but the learning fails or results in inaccurate and non-robust policies due to sparse rewards

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenavigation policy robustnessVSAvoidreward sparsity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a critic network as an intermediary that learns to predict the value of states, bridging the gap between sparse true objective rewards and the need for dense guidance signals during training. The critic network provides continuous value estimates that guide the actor network's learning process even when true objective rewards are sparse.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent automatically adjusts reward weights as learnable parameters that are optimized during training. This transforms the fixed, sparse reward structure into a dynamic reward system where weights can be continuously adjusted to provide denser gradient signals while maintaining alignment with the true objective.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If hand-chosen shaped rewards are used in reward shaping, then the reward function can be less sparse, but poorly chosen shaped rewards lead to pathologies where agents learn to exploit the reward function or terminate episodes early

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepolicy robustnessVSAvoidreward function design complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements self-service by making the reward weights learnable parameters that are automatically optimized during training through gradient descent. The system eliminates the need for manual reward function design by allowing the neural network to automatically discover the optimal reward weighting that prevents exploitation while guiding toward the true objective.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent incorporates feedback mechanisms where the critic network evaluates states and actions, providing continuous value estimates that feed back into the actor's policy updates. This feedback loop enables automatic adjustment of behavior based on learned value signals, preventing reward exploitation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Ease of operation

If vision-based navigation uses high-level motion primitives, then the navigation can be simplified, but the method requires tuning for each new robot and environment and abstracts away robot dynamics

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenavigation control simplicityVSAvoidrobot-environment generalization
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a universal policy network that directly maps sensor observations to control actions, eliminating the need for separate motion primitives and their individual tuning. This end-to-end learned policy generalizes across different robots and environments while maintaining direct control, combining the benefits of simplicity and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Measurement precision

If motion planning handles robot dynamics, then accurate navigation can be achieved, but near-perfect sensor observations are required which are not available in practice

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesensor observation accuracyVSAvoidnavigation accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces traditional motion planning algorithms with a deep reinforcement learning approach. Instead of relying on precise sensor observations and classical control theories, the system uses a neural network to learn robust mappings from noisy sensor data to control actions, substituting mechanical/mathematical precision with learned robustness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS20210325894A1Deep reinforcement learning-based techniques for end to end robot navigation
Publication Date: 2021.10.21 GOOGLE LLC
  • US20210325894A1 patent drawing
  • US20210325894A1 patent drawing
  • US20210325894A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Using reinforcement learning to train a policy network that can be utilized, for example, by a robot in performing robot navigation and/or other robotic tasks. Various implementations relate to techniques for automatically learning a reward function for training of a policy network through reinforcement learning, and automatically learning a neural network architecture for the policy network.