Impact of Markov Decision Process Design on Sim-to-Real Reinforcement Learning
Organizations: Institute of Production and Informatics, 87527 Sonthofen, Germany · Department of Mathematics, RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated strong potential for industrial process control, yet policies trained in simulation often suffer from a significant sim-to-real gap when deployed on physical hardware. This work systematically analyzes how core Markov Decision Process (MDP) design choices -- state composition, target inclusion, reward formulation, termination criteria, and environment dynamics models -- affect this transfer. Using a color mixing task, we evaluate different MDP configurations and mixing dynamics across simulation and real-world experiments. We validate our findings on physical hardware, demonstrating that physics-based dynamics models achieve up to 50% real-world success under strict precision constraints where simplified models fail entirely. Our results provide practical MDP design guidelines for deploying RL in industrial process control.
Figures & tables
| ID | Volume Encoding | Example | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | l | Absolute total volume | |
| 1 | l | Absolute per-channel | |
| 2 | Relative total volume | ||
| 3 | Relative per-channel | ||
| 4 | Normalized ratios |
| Phase 1 | Tested | Selected |
| Fixed: lerp , Noise, ARL , , | ||
| Target inclusion | yes / no | yes |
| State | 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 | 2, 3, 4 |
| Reward | R1 / R2 / R3 | R1, R2 |
| Phase 2 | Tested | Selected |
| Fixed: lerp , Noise, ARL , Target yes, State , Reward | ||
| Model | Phase | Target | State | Termination | Tolerance | Reward | Dynamics Model |
| M1 | 1 | Yes | 4 | 20 | 10 | R1 | lerp |
| M2 | 1 | No | 4 | 20 | 10 | R1 | lerp |
| M3 | 2 | Yes | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | R1 | lerp |
| M4 | 3 | Yes | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | R1 | KM |
| M5 | 3 | Yes | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | R1 | WGM |
| Phase | FP | CV | T7.5 | NM | CS |
| 1 - Target yes | 9.75 0.02 | 0.0119 | 15,018 | 0 | 0.998 |
| 1 - Target no | 6.99 0.23 | 0.07 | 178,858 | 20 | 0.93 |
| 2 - 10, 7.5 | 9.14 0.06 | 0.03 | 28,672 | 1.7 | 0.94 |
| 2 - 5, 7.5 | 7.3 0.14 | 0.06 | 92,842 | 14 | 0.75 |
| 3 - R1, State 4 | 6.81 0.02 | 0.06 | 209,578 | 20.7 | 0.77 |
| 3 - R2 | 6.01 0.05 | 0.08 | – | 21.3 | 0.71 |
| Target | lerp | KM | WGM |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 11.3 | 15.0 | 13.0 |
| C2 | 30.0 | 32.0 | 26.0 |
| C3 | 36.6 | 40.0 | 33.0 |
| C4 | 11.5 | 11.0 | 9.0 |
| Model | Metric | C1 | C4 | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 12.98 2.28 | 42.32 2.62 | 17.10 14.95 | |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Succ (%) | 0 | 0 | 43.75 | |
| M2 | 108.62 1.86 | 46.74 3.39 | 54.39 32.45 | |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
| Succ (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sim-to-Real Transfer
Simulation-to-reality transfer adapts models and policies trained in simulation for reliable performance in physical or otherwise real-world settings.
See all 316 papers