ENYOLAB · sample-efficient imitation · AMD ROCm / Radeon AI PRO R9700

Under a small budget of demonstrations, does aggressive regularization buy sample-efficiency?

A Diffusion Policy learns the PushT manipulation task from a handful of teleoperated demos. We vary the number of demos and the recipe (standard vs. heavily regularized) and measure how far each gets. Inspired by Konwoo et al. on data-constrained pre-training.

it works

The policy actually solves the task

Every evaluation records the rollout. These are real episodes: the pusher (blue) drives the grey block onto the green target. Episodes end the instant coverage crosses 95%.

standard recipe, 200 demos — diffusion policy on PushT

PushT rollout
solved · std ep2
PushT rollout
solved · std ep3

enhanced recipe, 200 demos — + weight-decay + augmentation

PushT rollout
solved · enh ep3
PushT rollout
solved · enh ep0

Preliminary evidence: under a 100-demo budget, enhanced regularization improves PushT success from 8% to 19% (+11 pts), while showing no gain at 200 demos.

Data-efficiency signal

Success rate on 100 evaluation episodes, seed 0. The question is whether the enhanced curve sits above standard — i.e. reaches the same success with fewer demos.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%100 demos200 demos19%29%8%29%
  • Enhanced (+ weight-decay + augmentation)
  • Standard (LeRobot defaults)

Method — the honest spec

Preliminary: single seed, one GPU, a baseline that plateaus below the published reference. Enough to show the signal, not yet to publish.

Policy
Diffusion Policy
Task
PushT (sim)
Steps / run
150,000
Eval episodes
100
Seed
0
Throughput
~11 step/s
Wall-clock / run
~3h48
Hardware
R9700 (gfx1201)

What we haven't done yet — and should