Beyond Reward Hacking: Proxy Divergence Across Four Layers of a Staged Humanoid Learning Pipeline
Organizations: London, United Kingdom
Abstract
A reinforcement-learning (RL) pipeline for a legged robot is assembled from proxies. A reward stands in for intended behaviour, a curriculum gate stands in for competence, an evaluation statistic stands in for robustness, and a reference motion stands in for an achievable skill. The traditional view treats only the first of these as optimised against, and so locates specification failure (reward hacking) in the reward alone. I argue that all four are proxies in the same formal sense, that each has a characteristic divergence mechanism, and that each admits a reformulation that closes it. For every layer I state the traditional formulation, derive the condition under which it diverges from its target, and give the alternative: first-order (L1) costs where quadratic kernels are flat, peak and outcome statistics where curriculum gates average, gate reachability and information checks, deterministic and phase-desynchronised evaluation, curriculum state treated as part of the model, feasibility-first reference design with residual feed-forward, and function-preserving input widening that lets one policy grow instead of being retrained. The arguments are illustrated by measurements from one continuous lineage of a PPO policy for a simulated 1.91 m humanoid, grown over four stages and 13,500 iterations on a single laptop GPU. Among them, a curriculum gate built on averaged error advanced at its rate limit on every check while the skill it gated was absent, and a batched push test whose synchronised resets aliased the gait phase ranked a 0.5 m/s push as more dangerous than a 2.0 m/s one.
Figures & tables
| Push (m/s) | Walking 0.6 m/s | Standing |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 3 | 10 |
| 1.0 | 27 | 38 |
| 1.5 | 35 | 44 |
| 2.0 | 47 | 62 |
| Stage | Adds | Iter. | Obs | Vel. trk | Fall | Waist |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | err (rad) | |||||
| S1 | standing, observed upper body, torso target (scratch) | 0–4499 | 253 | 0.760 | 1.27 | 0.057 |
| S2 | speed curriculum to 2 m/s | –7498 | 253 | 0.717 | 1.73 | 0.067 |
| S3 | fast upper-body sequences | –9497 | 253 | 0.758 | 1.15 | 0.065 |
| S4 | lower-limb reference (widened) | –13496 | 274 | 0.733 | 1.03 | 0.067 |
| Layer | Traditional | Why it diverges | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reward | Gaussian tracking kernel | Loss is second order at the rest state; any first-order incentive causes drift | Add a first-order (L1) cost active in the rest state |
| Reward | Penalise only undesirable joints | An unrewarded coordinate with monotone residual objective settles on its bound | Every actuated coordinate in reward support (regulariser or commanded target) and behind a limit barrier |
| Curriculum | Gate on error averaged over joints and time | Dilution: accepts misses up to | Peak error over actuated joints, conjoined with a contact-level outcome predicate |
| Curriculum | Threshold set by intuition | May exceed what any policy achieves | Require from an open-loop rollout |
| Curriculum | Progress judged by level reached | A gate that never refuses carries no information | Log and inspect the refusal count |
| Curriculum | Level stored in the environment | Fine-tuning silently changes the objective | Checkpoint ; compare on fixed |
Robotic Policy Evaluation
Robotic policy evaluation measures whether learned controllers succeed reliably, generalize across conditions, recover from failures, and behave safely.
See all 125 papers