Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

SINDy-RL: Interpretable and Efficient Model-Based Reinforcement Learning (2403.09110v1)

Published 14 Mar 2024 in cs.LG, cs.SY, eess.SY, math.DS, and math.OC

Abstract: Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has shown significant promise for uncovering sophisticated control policies that interact in environments with complicated dynamics, such as stabilizing the magnetohydrodynamics of a tokamak fusion reactor or minimizing the drag force exerted on an object in a fluid flow. However, these algorithms require an abundance of training examples and may become prohibitively expensive for many applications. In addition, the reliance on deep neural networks often results in an uninterpretable, black-box policy that may be too computationally expensive to use with certain embedded systems. Recent advances in sparse dictionary learning, such as the sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics (SINDy), have shown promise for creating efficient and interpretable data-driven models in the low-data regime. In this work we introduce SINDy-RL, a unifying framework for combining SINDy and DRL to create efficient, interpretable, and trustworthy representations of the dynamics model, reward function, and control policy. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approaches on benchmark control environments and challenging fluids problems. SINDy-RL achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art DRL algorithms using significantly fewer interactions in the environment and results in an interpretable control policy orders of magnitude smaller than a deep neural network policy.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (134)
  1. Richard Szeliski. Computer vision: algorithms and applications. Springer Nature, 2022.
  2. Natural language processing: State of the art, current trends and challenges. Multimedia tools and applications, 82(3):3713–3744, 2023.
  3. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. In Reinforcement Learning, pages 579–610. Springer, 2012.
  4. Sayon Dutta. Reinforcement Learning with TensorFlow: A beginner’s guide to designing self-learning systems with TensorFlow and OpenAI Gym. Packt Publishing Ltd, 2018.
  5. Benjamin Recht. A tour of reinforcement learning: The view from continuous control. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 2:253–279, 2019.
  6. Reinforcement learning: Theory and algorithms. CS Dept., UW Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA, Tech. Rep, 2019.
  7. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2022.
  8. Deep reinforcement learning with double Q-learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30, 2016.
  9. Dueling network architectures for deep reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1995–2003. PMLR, 2016.
  10. Adversarial imitation via variational inverse reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06404, 2018.
  11. Fast policy learning through imitation and reinforcement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10413, 2018.
  12. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 518(7540):529, 2015.
  13. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature, 550(7676):354–359, 2017.
  14. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, Shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419):1140–1144, 2018.
  15. Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680, 2019.
  16. Grandmaster level in StarCraft ii using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature, 575(7782):350–354, 2019.
  17. Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 620(7976):982–987, 2023.
  18. Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 602(7897):414–419, 2022.
  19. Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design. Science advances, 4(7):eaap7885, 2018.
  20. Reinforcement learning and wavelet adapted vortex methods for simulations of self-propelled swimmers. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 36(3):B622–B639, 2014.
  21. Flow navigation by smart microswimmers via reinforcement learning. Physical review letters, 118(15):158004, 2017.
  22. A continuous reinforcement learning strategy for closed-loop control in fluid dynamics. In 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, page 3566, 2017.
  23. Efficient collective swimming by harnessing vortices through deep reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(23):5849–5854, 2018.
  24. Zermelo’s problem: Optimal point-to-point navigation in 2d turbulent flows using reinforcement learning. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 29(10):103138, 2019.
  25. Controlled gliding and perching through deep-reinforcement-learning. Physical Review Fluids, 4(9):093902, 2019.
  26. Reinforcement learning for bluff body active flow control in experiments and simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(42):26091–26098, 2020.
  27. Deep reinforcement learning applied to active flow control. 2020.
  28. Controlling rayleigh-bénard convection via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.14358, 2020.
  29. Automating turbulence modelling by multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(1):87–96, 2021.
  30. Scientific multi-agent reinforcement learning for wall-models of turbulent flows. Nature Communications, 13(1):1443, 2022.
  31. Offline reinforcement learning: Tutorial, review, and perspectives on open problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.01643, 2020.
  32. Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(2):1–35, 2017.
  33. Survey of imitation learning for robotic manipulation. International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications, 3:362–369, 2019.
  34. A survey on imitation learning techniques for end-to-end autonomous vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(9):14128–14147, 2022.
  35. Prioritized experience replay. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016.
  36. Experience replay for continual learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
  37. Hindsight experience replay. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  38. Transfer learning in deep reinforcement learning: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023.
  39. Learning to reinforcement learn. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.05763, 2016.
  40. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1126–1135. PMLR, 2017.
  41. Sim2real in robotics and automation: Applications and challenges. IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering, 18(2):398–400, 2021.
  42. Optimal control. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
  43. Nonlinear model predictive control. Springer, 2017.
  44. Richard S Sutton. Integrated architectures for learning, planning, and reacting based on approximating dynamic programming. In Machine learning proceedings 1990, pages 216–224. Elsevier, 1990.
  45. Benchmarking model-based reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02057, 2019.
  46. Model-based reinforcement learning via meta-policy optimization. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 617–629. PMLR, 2018.
  47. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15):3932–3937, 2016.
  48. Sparse identification for nonlinear optical communication systems: SINO method. Optics express, 24(26):30433–30443, 2016.
  49. Letetia Mary Addison. Dynamics of a prey-predator model using sparse identification: A data driven approach. Journal of Coupled Systems and Multiscale Dynamics, 5(2):143–150, 2017.
  50. Sparse identification of a predator-prey system from simulation data of a convection model. Physics of Plasmas, 24(2):022310, 2017.
  51. On the convergence of the sindy algorithm. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 17(3):948–972, 2019.
  52. Sparse learning of stochastic dynamical equations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148(24):241723, 2018.
  53. Sparse identification of truncation errors. Journal of Computational Physics, 397:108851, 2019.
  54. Learning chemical reaction networks from trajectory data. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18(4):2000–2046, 2019.
  55. Constrained sparse Galerkin regression. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 838:42–67, 2018.
  56. Sparse reduced-order modeling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 844:459–490, 2018.
  57. Nonlinear stochastic modelling with Langevin regression. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477(2250):20210092, 2021.
  58. Sparse nonlinear models of chaotic electroconvection. Royal Society Open Science, 8(8):202367, 2021.
  59. Jean-Christophe Loiseau. Data-driven modeling of the chaotic thermal convection in an annular thermosyphon. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 34, 2020.
  60. Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 884(A37), 2020.
  61. Galerkin force model for transient and post-transient dynamics of the fluidic pinball. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 918, 2021.
  62. On the role of nonlinear correlations in reduced-order modeling. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 938(A1), 2022.
  63. An empirical mean-field model of symmetry-breaking in a turbulent wake. Science Advances, 8(eabm4786), 2022.
  64. Data-driven equation discovery of ocean mesoscale closures. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(17):e2020GL088376, 2020.
  65. Discovery of algebraic Reynolds-stress models using sparse symbolic regression. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 104(2):579–603, 2020.
  66. S Beetham and J Capecelatro. Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance. Physical Review Fluids, 5(8):084611, 2020.
  67. Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid–particle flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 914, 2021.
  68. Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations. Science Advances, 3(e1602614), 2017.
  69. Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(45):22445–22451, 2019.
  70. Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics. Physical Review Fluids, 6(094401), 2021.
  71. Sparse model selection via integral terms. Physical Review E, 96(2):023302, 2017.
  72. Using noisy or incomplete data to discover models of spatiotemporal dynamics. Physical Review E, 101(1):010203, 2020.
  73. Weak SINDy for partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 443:110525, 2021.
  74. Weak SINDy: Galerkin-based data-driven model selection. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 19(3):1474–1497, 2021.
  75. Ensemble-SINDy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 478(2260):20210904, 2022.
  76. Bayesian identification of dynamical systems. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, 33(1):33, 2020.
  77. Convergence of uncertainty estimates in ensemble and Bayesian sparse model discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12649, 2023.
  78. Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with control (SINDYc). IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(18):710–715, 2016.
  79. Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for model predictive control in the low-data limit. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 474(2219):20180335, 2018.
  80. SINDy with control: A tutorial. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 16–21. IEEE, 2021.
  81. Time-dependent SOLPS-ITER simulations of the tokamak plasma boundary for model predictive control using SINDy. Nuclear Fusion, 63(4):046015, 2023.
  82. Structured online learning-based control of continuous-time nonlinear systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53(2):8142–8149, 2020.
  83. A structured online learning approach to nonlinear tracking with unknown dynamics. In 2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 2205–2211. IEEE, 2021.
  84. Model-based reinforcement learning with SINDy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14501, 2022.
  85. dm_control: Software and tasks for continuous control. Software Impacts, 6:100022, 2020.
  86. Openai gym. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540, 2016.
  87. HydroGym: a platform for reinforcement learning control in fluid dynamics, 2023.
  88. Reinforcement learning: An introduction, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, 1998.
  89. Anil V Rao. A survey of numerical methods for optimal control. Advances in the astronautical Sciences, 135(1):497–528, 2009.
  90. Neural network dynamics for model-based deep reinforcement learning with model-free fine-tuning. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 7559–7566. IEEE, 2018.
  91. Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using probabilistic dynamics models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
  92. Pilco: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11), pages 465–472, 2011.
  93. Synthesis and stabilization of complex behaviors through online trajectory optimization. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 4906–4913. IEEE, 2012.
  94. Learning continuous control policies by stochastic value gradients. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015.
  95. End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(1):1334–1373, 2016.
  96. Dyna-style planning with linear function approximation and prioritized sweeping. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2008.
  97. Koopman constrained policy optimization: A Koopman operator theoretic method for differentiable optimal control in robotics. In ICML 2023 Workshop on Differentiable Almost Everything: Differentiable Relaxations, Algorithms, Operators, and Simulators, 2023.
  98. Koopman assisted reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS Workshop on AI4Science, 2023.
  99. Automated reverse engineering of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24):9943–9948, 2007.
  100. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science, 324(5923):81–85, 2009.
  101. Miles Cranmer. Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression. jl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01582, 2023.
  102. Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), pages 267–288, 1996.
  103. Manfred Schroeder. Synthesis of low-peak-factor signals and binary sequences with low autocorrelation (corresp.). IEEE transactions on Information Theory, 16(1):85–89, 1970.
  104. Model selection for dynamical systems via sparse regression and information criteria. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 473(2204):1–16, 2017.
  105. Stability selection enables robust learning of differential equations from limited noisy data. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 478(2262):20210916, 2022.
  106. Sparsifying priors for Bayesian uncertainty quantification in model discovery. Royal Society Open Science, 9(2):211823, 2022.
  107. Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping. In Icml, volume 99, pages 278–287. Citeseer, 1999.
  108. A survey of inverse reinforcement learning: Challenges, methods and progress. Artificial Intelligence, 297:103500, 2021.
  109. Simple random search provides a competitive approach to reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07055, 2018.
  110. Towards generalization and simplicity in continuous control. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017.
  111. Nn-poly: Approximating common neural networks with taylor polynomials to imbue dynamical system constraints. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:968305, 2022.
  112. Dynamic tube mpc for nonlinear systems. In 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 1655–1662. IEEE, 2019.
  113. SINDy-PI: a robust algorithm for parallel implicit sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2242):20200279, 2020.
  114. Tianshou: A highly modularized deep reinforcement learning library. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1):12275–12280, 2022.
  115. Cleanrl: High-quality single-file implementations of deep reinforcement learning algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(274):1–18, 2022.
  116. Making reinforcement learning work on swimmer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07587, 2022.
  117. Deep reinforcement learning for flow control exploits different physics for increasing reynolds number regimes. In Actuators, volume 11, page 359. MDPI, 2022.
  118. Dynamic feature-based deep reinforcement learning for flow control of circular cylinder with sparse surface pressure sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01995, 2023.
  119. RLlib: Abstractions for distributed reinforcement learning. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3053–3062. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018.
  120. Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118, 2018.
  121. Population based training of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09846, 2017.
  122. Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17429–17442, 2020.
  123. AI Feynman: A physics-inspired method for symbolic regression. Science Advances, 6(16):eaay2631, 2020.
  124. Integration of neural network-based symbolic regression in deep learning for scientific discovery. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(9):4166–4177, 2020.
  125. Learning equations for extrapolation and control. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4442–4450. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018.
  126. Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2778–2787. PMLR, 2017.
  127. Physics-constrained, low-dimensional models for mhd: First-principles and data-driven approaches. Physical Review E, 104(015206), 2021.
  128. Learning dynamical systems with side information. In Learning for Dynamics and Control, pages 718–727. PMLR, 2020.
  129. Synthesizing control laws from data using sum-of-squares optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01089, 2023.
  130. Discovering governing equations from partial measurements with deep delay autoencoders. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 479(2276):20230422, 2023.
  131. Evolution strategies as a scalable alternative to reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03864, 2017.
  132. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017.
  133. PySINDy: A python package for the sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems from data. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(49):2104, 2020.
  134. PySINDy: A comprehensive python package for robust sparse system identification. Journal of Open Source Software, 7(69):3994, 2022.
Citations (5)

Summary

  • The paper introduces SINDy-RL, a novel framework that integrates sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics into reinforcement learning, achieving up to 100x improvement in sample efficiency over traditional methods.
  • The methodology employs a Dyna-style algorithm that fits an ensemble of sparse symbolic models to surrogate dynamics, significantly reducing data requirements and computational costs.
  • Results across benchmark tasks like cartpole swing-up and Swimmer-v4 demonstrate that SINDy-RL delivers robust, compact, and interpretable control policies for complex systems.

Interpretable and Efficient Control Policies with SINDy-RL in Reinforcement Learning

The paper under analysis explores the integration of sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics (SINDy) into the reinforcement learning (RL) framework, specifically addressing inefficiencies in deep reinforcement learning (DRL) methods. Notably, DRL, while effective in deriving complex control policies for environments with intricate dynamics, often encounters limitations related to high sample complexity and lack of interpretability. In response, the authors propose the SINDy-RL framework, aiming to leverage the strengths of both model-based and model-free approaches to enhance efficiency and interpretability in RL applications.

SINDy-RL seeks to address three core limitations associated with traditional DRL approaches: excessive data requirements, resource-intensive deployment, and "black-box" models lacking transparency. In doing so, it presents significant advancements in areas where computational resources, interpretability, and sample efficiency are critical constraints. The approach integrates SINDy, a recent breakthrough in sparse dictionary learning recognized for producing interpretable models in data-sparse regimes, within a reinforcement learning context to derive efficient and compact representations of environment dynamics, reward functions, and control policies.

Method Overview

The methodology presented revolves around a Dyna-style model-based reinforcement learning algorithm that employs SINDy to learn sparse, symbolic models of environment dynamics and, when necessary, the reward functions. A pivotal attribute of the SINDy-RL is its sample-efficient exploration, facilitated by the surrogate dynamics model, which aids in both training and deploying lightweight policies.

Key procedural elements involve initially fitting an ensemble of SINDy models to establish a surrogate approximation of the environment dynamics, which serve as a platform for DRL policy optimization. Iteratively, policies trained in the surrogate environments are updated using model-free techniques and then tested within the original environment to improve upon the learned dynamics iteratively. The ensemble approach to the dictionary models offers intrinsic robustness, ensuring convergence even in the presence of noise or sparse data availability.

Results and Numerical Findings

The efficacy of SINDy-RL is demonstrated across various benchmark environments, such as the dm cartpole 'swing-up', the OpenAI gymnasium Swimmer-v4, and the HydroGym Cylinder flow scenarios. Remarkably, the proposed SINDy-RL exhibits a hundredfold improvement in sample efficiency for the swing-up task compared to traditional PPO-based policies, underlining its capacity to operate in a constrained data scenario effectively.

Notably, in the context of complex systems such as fluid mechanics, the application of SINDy principles allows the derivation of surrogate reward functions where the exact reward is challenging to measure, thus facilitating efficient policy training in such partially observed environments.

In addition to its numerical performance, the use of SINDy further enables a significant reduction in model complexity, providing the capability to deploy interpretable control policies that are orders of magnitude more compact than their deep network counterparts, enhancing their usability in resource-constrained environments.

Implications and Future Prospects

The implications of SINDy-RL are profound, offering a pathway to leverage interpretability alongside efficiency in dynamic system control. The integration of symbolic policy representations provides researchers and practitioners with a tool to understand and trust the derived policies, crucial for deploying such systems in safety-critical applications.

Future developments in AI could potentially revolve around refining the surrogate dynamics integration, enhancing stability, and exploring broader applications in partially observed settings. Additionally, this work opens up avenues for further automating the process of selecting and optimizing dictionary libraries to account for diverse environment types while maintaining computational tractability.

Overall, SINDy-RL represents a promising intersection of model-based and model-free reinforcement learning, setting the stage for a new breed of RL algorithms that are efficient, interpretable, and robust in data-scarce regimes.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com