📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

Reinforcement Learning (RL) robot controllers usually aggregate many task objectives into one scalar reward. While large-scale proximal policy optimisation (PPO) has enabled impressive results such as robust robot locomotion in the real world, many tasks still require careful reward tuning and are brittle to local optima. Tuning cost and sub-optimality grow with the number of objectives, limiting scalability. Modelling reward vectors and their trade-offs can address these issues; however, multi-objective methods remain underused in RL for robotics because of computational cost and optimisation difficulty. In this work, we investigate the conflict between gradient contributions for each objective that emerge from scalarising the task objectives. In particular, we explicitly address the conflict between task-based rewards and terms that regularise the policy towards realistic behaviour. We propose GCR-PPO, a modification to actor-critic optimisation that decomposes the actor update into objective-wise gradients using a multi-headed critic and resolves conflicts based on the objective priority. Our methodology, GCR-PPO, is evaluated on the well-known IsaacLab manipulation and locomotion benchmarks and additional multi-objective modifications on two related tasks. We show superior scalability compared to parallel PPO (p = 0.04), without significant computational overhead. We also show higher performance with more conflicting tasks. GCR-PPO improves on large-scale PPO with an average improvement of 9.5%, with high-conflict tasks observing a greater improvement. The code is available at https://github.com/humphreymunn/GCR-PPO.