Industry is moving toward autonomous, network-connected machines that detect and adapt to changing conditions, including hardware faults. Conventional fault-tolerant design duplicates hardware and reroutes control logic; reinforcement learning (RL) offers a learning-based alternative. This paper presents the first systematic comparison of two RL algorithms -- Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) -- for integrating fault tolerance into control. Beyond algorithm choice, we investigate four knowledge-transfer strategies: retaining or discarding model parameters, and retaining or discarding storage contents. Performance is evaluated in two Gymnasium environments: Ant-v5 and FetchReachDense-v3. Results show rapid, fault-specific recovery with clear trade-offs. In Ant-v5, retaining PPO's parameters boosts early returns and remains the safest choice across all faults, while retaining SAC's parameters yields mixed outcomes. SAC's early performance further depends on whether the replay buffer is retained: beneficial when prior experiences match current dynamics, but harmful when they diverge. In FetchReachDense-v3, discarding both PPO's and SAC's parameters was most effective under sensor corruption. Across tasks, both algorithms recover near-normal performance within minutes in low-dimensional settings and within days in high-dimensional settings, highlighting a clear trade-off between adaptation speed and asymptotic performance. These findings demonstrate that RL can deliver robust fault tolerance and offer practical guidelines.
Robot policies inevitably encounter failures when deployed in real environments. Naive retries often repeat the same mistakes, while many existing recovery methods rely on human intervention. In this paper, we propose Failure-Aware Retry (FAR), a framework that enables robots to learn from previous failures at test time, adapt their behavior accordingly, and eventually complete the task autonomously. FAR combines Failure-Contrastive Preference Adaptation, which constructs preference learning data from failures to steer the policy away from previously unsuccessful behaviors, with lightweight action perturbations during retries to encourage local exploration. We further incorporate successful recovery trajectories into a training loop for continual policy improvement. Experiments in both simulation and real-world manipulation tasks show that FAR substantially improves success rates and robustness, with average gains of 17.6% over the standard diffusion policy in simulation and 11.7% in the real world. In addition, FAR significantly improves data efficiency under both reset and timestep budgets during continual policy improvement by exploiting informative failure cases.
Training reinforcement-learning agents directly on physical robots makes every fall costly, since a fall can damage the platform and cannot be undone like a simulator reset; the goal is therefore to minimize falls during training rather than trade them off against return, as constrained Markov decision process (MDP) formulations do. A standard mitigation hands control to a separate recovery policy whenever the agent leaves a designer-specified safe region (a subset of state space it should stay within), but the resulting mixed-policy rollouts silently bias every on-policy update, and the importance-sampling correction that would remove this bias is ill-defined whenever the recovery policy is deterministic. We address this bias with a drop-in modification of proximal policy optimization (PPO). Its core is an unbiased policy-gradient estimator that uses the score function only at safe timesteps and never evaluates the recovery policy's density, so it stays valid even when the recovery policy is deterministic, exactly where importance sampling breaks, and it empirically dominates importance sampling even when the recovery policy is stochastic. Because the recovery policy still makes credit assignment slow near the safe-region boundary, two further components accelerate learning: a closed-form value for recovery-triggering states when dynamics and recovery are deterministic, and an imitation loss that copies recovery actions only when recovery succeeds. On a three-environment, five-seed benchmark, the resulting algorithm reduces training-time falls by factors of 233x, 48x, and 26x on HalfCheetah, Ant, and Unitree Go1 over standard PPO, while matching or exceeding PPO's final reward, and on Ant, where the recovery policy is unreliable, it is the only method that reaches 80% of the best final reward.
Transfer-oriented reinforcement learning requires evaluating algorithms along dimensions that go beyond standard sample efficiency. We focus on two dimensions: practical efficiency, which asks whether conclusions about algorithm suitability change under wall-clock rather than interaction-based budgets, and robustness under dynamics mismatch, which asks how different learning paradigms respond to variability in the training distribution induced by domain randomization. We provide two insights to reinforcement-learning practitioners. First, comparing the sample efficiency of different algorithms is often an insufficient criterion in transfer-oriented settings. The wall-clock time required to train a decent policy is an important consideration for practitioners, and we find that the sample-inefficient PPO algorithm can produce a performant policy faster than relatively more sample-efficient algorithms such as SAC and TD-MPC2, validating the common understanding of massively parallel training paradigms. Second, domain randomization can help different kinds of algorithms learn robust policies. In particular, although PPO, SAC, and TD-MPC2 represent different RL paradigms - on-policy, off-policy, and model-based learning and planning, respectively - we find that domain randomization affects all three algorithms in a similar way. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first controlled comparison of the effect of domain-randomization coverage on PPO, SAC, and TD-MPC2 under the same transfer protocol. Taken together, these two insights highlight the importance of evaluating RL algorithms not only by sample efficiency, but also by practical considerations such as training time and the algorithms' ability to produce usable policies.