How a Predictive State Observer Can Self-Adapt Its Sensory Prediction-Error Correction Gain: Closed-Loop Evidence from a Muscle-Driven Reaching Task
Kobayashi, J.
Show abstract
We ask how a forward-model-based predictive state observer should set its sensory prediction-error correction gain during muscle-driven reaching, and whether that gain can be adapted from agent-available signals -- innovation history and per-episode reaching outcome -- rather than from swept oracle labels. We evaluate a residual-MLP forward model in a 34-muscle MyoSuite arm on an IK-reachable below-shoulder task, deployed in closed loop with a stabilized endpoint probe controller that uses non-negative least-squares muscle routing and a virtual target ramp; the controller is a stabilized probe for evaluating state-estimation effects, not a biological motor planner. A swept fixed-gain closed-loop oracle reveals a delay-dependent correction structure: with no sensory delay, intermediate correction gains are best (K = 0.25-0.50), whereas with 18-step delay observation-heavy correction wins (K = 1.0). The forward-model-only K = 0 ablation is not the oracle: it is systematically worse than the best fixed K by 1.9-6.1 cm and shows large NNLS controller residuals caused by long-horizon autoregressive drift; we therefore report K = 0 as a diagnostic. Outcome-trained reliability-adaptive observers improve the delayed regime by 1.9-2.5 cm over default reliability while remaining neutral in no-delay cells, where the oracle is already intermediate. A feature-conditioned {beta} adapter that maps cell-level innovation statistics to per-field gain parameters nearly matches a per-cell trained diagnostic in 5/6 cells, but both remain 1.4-1.8 cm worse than the swept fixed-K oracle at 18-step delay. These results separate the delay-dependent correction structure, the forward-model-only failure mode of K = 0, and the remaining limits of agent-available adaptive correction.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.