Skip to content
MouseMouse

Sort external training advice into adopt / already-have / modify / would-trap by recomputing it on your own config

A lesson the Coach cites as external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic.
ReplicatedExperiment method

Never apply external tuning advice directly: recompute each claim on your own reward table and probe data, classify it adopt / have / modify / trap, and record why - and verify external citations actually exist.

Symptom

External AI/literature advice for the omni ladder arrived plausible-sounding but was written without knowledge of this robot's actual reward table, contract, and history; following it blindly would have broken single-variable discipline and, in one case, made sidewalk unlearnable.

Context

Before the C ladder, every external suggestion was audited: 3 adopted (ellipsoid command sampling; staged wz bands; command-switch acceptance), 3 already present (unified reward; frame history - the frozen 168-dim 5-frame window; per-100-iter acceptance), 2 modified (stand share kept at 20% to avoid a second variable; back share NOT raised because the probe showed backward works untrained 20/20@67%, so oversampling would only crowd out forward), and 1 flagged as a trap: "start vy very small (0.06-0.15)" - on THIS reward table vy was only an L2 tax, so ignoring a vy=0.06 command costs 0.4% of the vx tracking scale, 28-180x cheaper than ignoring forward, with quadratic shrinkage making small commands weaker still. A separate retrieval-reliability note: two search agents returned fabricated verbatim quotes from arXiv PDFs (2 papers, verified fake and discarded); only HTML/abstract/source-verifiable material was used.

Change

Advice classified only after recomputing each claim with local numbers; the "start small" trap was replaced by adding a gated lateral tracking term (the ladder's only true reward surgery) instead of shrinking the command.

Outcome

The adopted items (ellipsoid modes, staged wz, transition acceptance) entered the ladder; the trap was avoided; one external factual error (calling s1g the mainline start - it was falsified 0/20) was caught. Later, one initially-dismissed item (sigma=0.15 too narrow) turned out right for a different reason than claimed - see cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities.

Mechanism

External advice encodes the advisor's reward table and robot, not yours; the transfer-validity test is whether the claim survives recomputation under your own arithmetic (reward margins, probe baselines, contract freeze). Items that survive become experiments; items that don't become documented traps.

Applies when

  • incorporating LLM or literature advice into a training plan
  • advice conflicts with locally measured baselines
  • an external claim depends on reward-table details the advisor cannot know
“其建议 C4「先很小,vy = ±0.06~0.15」—— 在我们这张奖励表下会让侧走学不起来 … 忽略侧走比忽略前进便宜 28~180 倍,且指令越小激励越弱(平方缩放)—— "先很小"在稳定性上对、在梯度上正好把信号缩没了。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 外部 AI 训练建议的评估(采纳 / 已有 / 要改 / 会踩坑)

Principles that cite it