首页 > AI前沿 > Diagnosing Faults in Reinforcement Learning Simulators and World Models with Canonical Polynomial Invariants

Diagnosing Faults in Reinforcement Learning Simulators and World Models with Canonical Polynomial Invariants

arXiv机器学习 2026-09-15 12:00 1 阅读 查看原文
arXiv:2609.13194 (cs)

Title:Diagnosing Faults in Reinforcement Learning Simulators and World Models with Canonical Polynomial Invariants

View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:A large literature builds physical structure into learned dynamics on the premise that models respecting the underlying physics predict better. We test that premise using exact polynomial invariants recovered from trajectories and canonicalised as reduced Gröbner bases over $\mathbb{Q}$. On Acrobot, exactness provides little benefit for prediction: a consistency regulariser reduces algebraic residual while leaving rollout fidelity essentially unchanged, and a shaping potential recovered from a system with a 100% mass error accelerates learning as effectively as the correct potential. Exact canonical invariants instead prove valuable for diagnosis. We develop two procedures: screening, which identifies the violated physical constraint, and attribution, which recovers the faulty invariant and identifies the responsible physical parameter. To enable this, we introduce normal-form deflation and quotient-space recovery. Across fifteen injected faults, screening localises every broken constraint with no false alarms, whereas observation-space baselines do not localise any; attribution recovers the responsible parameter on all seven parameter faults. Paired difference tests detect all faults, showing that the advantage is localisation rather than detection. Perturbing reference generators by $10^{-4}$ preserves 14--15/15 localisations, showing that screening does not require exactness, whereas ideal-equality decisions distinguish perturbations of only $10^{-12}$, showing that exactness is required for algebraic comparison. Applied to 350 release pairs across eleven RL environments, the diagnostic finds no evidence of changed simulator dynamics, instead revealing properties of the benchmark implementations themselves.
Comments:
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2609.13194 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2609.13194v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13194

Submission history

From: Hadush Hailu Gebrerufael Mr. [view email]
[v1] Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:28:11 UTC (330 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

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.