Here are the conclusions from the author of this paper:

“We introduce new metrics to assess the usefulness of proxy domains for agent learning. In a robotics setting it is common to use simulators for development and evaluation to reduce the need to deploy on real hardware. We argue that it is necessary to to take into account the specific task when evaluating the usefulness of the the proxy. We establish novel metrics for two specific uses of a proxy. When the proxy domain is used to predict performance in the target domain, we offer the PRPV to assess the usefulness of the proxy as a predictor, and we argue that the task needs to be imposed but not the agent. When a proxy is used to generate training data for a learning algorithm, we propose the PLV as a metric to assess usefulness of the source domain, which is dependent on a specific task and a learning algorithm. We demonstrated the use of these measures for predicting parameters in the Duckietown environment. Future work will involve more rigorous treatment of the optimization problems posed to find optimal parameters, possibly in connection with differentiable simulation environments.”

Here are the conclusions from the author of this paper:

“After several breakthroughs in the field of Deep Reinforcement Learning, it became one of the most popular researched topics in Machine Learning and a common approach to the problem of autonomous driving. This paper presents the process of training an autonomous robotic system using popular actor-critic algorithm in the simulator, which may then also be run on real robot. It was possible to train an agent in real-time using trial-and-error approach without the need to collect vast amounts of labeled data. The neural network learned how to control the robot and how to follow the lanes, without any explicit guidelines. Only a few functions have been used to transform the data sent between environment and the agent, in order to make the learning process smoother and faster. 

For evaluation purposes, a real robot and a small city model have been built, based on the Duckietown platform specification. This hardware has been used to evaluate in the real world the performance of the system, trained in simulator. Also, additional Transfer Learning techniques were used, in order to adjust the observations and actions in the real robot, due to the differences with simulated environment. Although, the performance in real environment was worse than in simulator, certain trained models were still able to guide the robot around a simple road loop, which shows a potential for such approach. As a result, the use of the simulator greatly reduced the time and effort needed to train the system, and transfer methods were used to deploy it in the real world. 

The Duckietown platform provides a baseline, which was modified and refactored to follow the system structure. The simulator and its components are thoroughly documented, the detailed instructions explain how to train and run the robot both in simulation and in real world and evaluate the results. Duckietown provides complete sets of parts, necessary to build the robot and small city, however, it was decided to build custom robot, according to the guidelines. The robot uses a single camera to get observations of the surrounding environment. 

The reinforcement learning algorithm was used to learn a policy, which tries to choose optimal actions based on the those observations with the help of reward function, that provides a feedback for previous decisions. It was possible to significantly reduce the effort required to train a model, thanks to the simulator, as the process does not require constant human supervision and involvement. Such approach proves to be very promising, as the agent learned how to do the lane-following task without any explicit labels, and has shown good performance in the simulated environment. Although, there is still a room for improvement, when it comes to transferring the model to real world, which requires various adaptations and adjustments to be made for The robot to properly execute maneuvers and show stability in its actions.”

Here are the conclusions from the author of this paper:

“The PID controller is used successfully in many control systems, and its implementation is relatively simple. There are also a number of methods and algorithms for adjusting controller parameters for this type of controller. 

PID controllers, on the other hand, are not free of disadvantages. One of them is the requirement of prior knowledge of, even roughly, the model of the process one wants to control. Thus, it is necessary to identify both the structure of the process model and its parameters. Identification tasks are complex tasks, requiring a great deal of knowledge about the nature of the process itself. There are also methods for identifying process models based on the results of practical experiments, however sometimes it may not be possible to conduct such experiments. When using a PID controller, one should also be aware that it was developed for processes, operation of which can be described by linear models. Unfortunately, the behavior of the vast majority of dynamic systems is described by non-linear models. 

The consequence of this fact is that, in such cases, the PID controller works using linear approximations of nonlinear systems, which can lead to various errors, inaccuracies, etc. Unlike the classic PID controller, controllers using artificial neural networks do not need to know the mathematical model of the process they control and its parameters. 

The ability to design different neural network architectures, such as convolutional, recurrent, or deep neural networks, makes it possible to adapt the neural regulator to the specific process it is supposed to control. On the other hand, the multiplicity of neural network architectures and their design means that we can never be sure whether a given neural network structure is optimal.

 The selection of neural controller parameters is done automatically using appropriate network training algorithms. The key element influencing the accuracy of neural regulator operation is the data used for training the neural network. The disadvantage of regulators using neural networks is the inability to demonstrate the stability of operation of the systems they control.

In case of the PID regulator, despite the use of approximate models of the process, it is very often possible to prove that a closed control system will operate stably in any or a certain range of values of variables. Unfortunately, such an analysis cannot be carried out in the case of neural regulators. In summary, the implementation of two different controllers to perform the same task provides an opportunity to learn the advantages and disadvantages of each.”

Here are the conclusions from the author of this paper:

“In the course of this work, a prototype visual evaluation system for Duckietown project was implemented. The system supports flexible seamless integration of third-party detection algorithms and trajectory evaluation algorithms. The visual control system was tested with client imitator module, witch does not require the presence of the real robot on the field. At this stage of the work, the prototype is able to recognize rectilinear trajectory of motion. In the future, we plan to develop evaluation algorithms for other types of trajectories: 90 degree turns, large angle turns, arc movement, etc. Another promising area of research is the integration of the system with cloud-based integrated development environments (IDEs) for industrial control algorithms.”