pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08478 · v1 · pith:7E6VPY7Dnew · submitted 2019-07-19 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.HC

Interactive Learning of Environment Dynamics for Sequential Tasks

Robert Loftin , Bei Peng , Matthew E. Taylor , Michael L. Littman , David L. Roberts This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.HC
keywords interactive learningenvironment dynamicssequential tasksbehavior aware modelinghuman demonstrationsevaluative feedbacktransition modelsreinforcement learning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Behavior Aware Modeling incorporates a human teacher's demonstrations and evaluative feedback to build a model of environment transition dynamics that outperforms methods ignoring this information.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops Behavior Aware Modeling (BAM) to let agents learn the structure and dynamics of a user's environment from a human teacher. Prior approaches often infer task goals from teachers but leave the agent to discover environment transitions on its own. BAM explicitly folds the teacher's knowledge of those transitions into the agent's model by combining demonstrations with evaluative feedback. This produces more accurate dynamics estimates for sequential tasks. A sympathetic reader would care because efficient task learning in real environments requires both goal and dynamics understanding rather than goal information alone.

Core claim

The paper claims that Behavior Aware Modeling (BAM) incorporates a teacher's knowledge into a model of the transition dynamics of an agent's environment by learning from a combination of task demonstrations and evaluative feedback, and that this approach outperforms methods which do not explicitly consider this source of dynamics knowledge, as demonstrated in both simulation and experiments with real human teachers.

What carries the argument

Behavior Aware Modeling (BAM), an algorithm that integrates a teacher's demonstrations and evaluative feedback directly into the learned model of environment transition dynamics.

If this is right

  • Agents can acquire accurate transition models without exploring the environment exhaustively on their own.
  • Task learning becomes more sample-efficient because dynamics information is supplied by the teacher rather than discovered through trial and error.
  • Evaluative feedback can be used alongside demonstrations to refine dynamics estimates rather than only to shape policy.
  • Sequential tasks defined by end users become feasible for agents that would otherwise lack sufficient environment structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separation of dynamics learning from goal learning may generalize to other interactive settings where humans provide mixed signals about both what to do and how the world works.
  • If teacher feedback on dynamics proves reliable, agents could request targeted feedback on uncertain transitions to accelerate model improvement.
  • The same modeling approach might reduce the amount of real-world interaction needed when transferring policies learned in simulation to physical environments.

Load-bearing premise

A teacher's demonstrations and evaluative feedback supply reliable, integrable information about environment transition dynamics that can be separated from goal information without substantial teacher bias or noise.

What would settle it

An experiment in which BAM shows no performance gain over baseline methods when the same teacher demonstrations and feedback are provided but the dynamics model is built without separating teacher input on transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08478 by Bei Peng, David L. Roberts, Matthew E. Taylor, Michael L. Littman, Robert Loftin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four of the learning environments used in both the simulated teacher and human subjects experiments. The goal locations are highlighted with either orange circles or green squares. ML-IRL to find the cost function for each task. Model-based IRL selects its dynamics model from the same spaces of models as BAM does, and selects its actions greedily. Both BAM and ML-IRL generalize to states for which they hav… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The total return of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and behavioral cloning, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % of optimal total return rounds Navigation - Wall 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % of optimal total return rounds Navigation - Doorway 20 40 60 80… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The total return of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and model-based IRL with global costs, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. ple, in the navigation domain, unobserved obstacles could be represented as states with a high global cost, with goals cap￾tured as low-cost states in the task-specific cost f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The total return (averaged over 50 episodes) of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and behavioral cloning, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies, learning from demonstrations and feedback combined. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. show a major improvement for model-based IRL in most domains, though BAM still has an advantage in the nav￾iga… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A screen shot of the user interface for the user study conducted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The interface is currently in the tutorial mode for the navigation domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A screen shot of the user interface for the user study conducted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The interface is currently in the tutorial mode for the farming domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The four navigation environments used in the simulated teacher experiments, including the Doorway and Two Rooms environments used in the human subjects experiments. Orange circles indicate goal locations, with each goal defining a different task. White squares indicate states blocked by obstacles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The two gravity environments used in the simulated teacher experiments. Orange circles indicate goal locations, with each goal defining a different task. Arrows indicate states that change the direction of the gravity, but the agent can only see the color of these arrows, not their direction. The unknown dynamics consist of the mapping from colors to gravity directions. (a) Farming - Two Fields (b) Farming… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The environments used in both the simulated teacher and human subjects experiments. Target Fields are highlighted with green squares, with each target field defining a different task. Also visible are the agent itself (the blue drone), and the three farm implements (only the plow and sprinkler are available in (b)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The total return (averaged over 50 episodes) of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and behavioral cloning, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies. Total return is the sum of the returns for each task. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. Shaded regions show the standard errors of the means. 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % of optimal tot… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The total return (averaged over 50 episodes) of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and model-based IRL with global costs, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies. Total return is the sum of the returns for each task. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. Shaded regions show the standard errors of the means [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The total return (averaged over 50 episodes) of the policies learned by BAM, model-based IRL, and behavioral cloning, as a percentage of the total return for the optimal policies, learning from demonstrations and feedback combined. Curves are averages over 50 separate agents learning from scratch. Shaded regions show the standard errors of the means [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In order for robots and other artificial agents to efficiently learn to perform useful tasks defined by an end user, they must understand not only the goals of those tasks, but also the structure and dynamics of that user's environment. While existing work has looked at how the goals of a task can be inferred from a human teacher, the agent is often left to learn about the environment on its own. To address this limitation, we develop an algorithm, Behavior Aware Modeling (BAM), which incorporates a teacher's knowledge into a model of the transition dynamics of an agent's environment. We evaluate BAM both in simulation and with real human teachers, learning from a combination of task demonstrations and evaluative feedback, and show that it can outperform approaches which do not explicitly consider this source of dynamics knowledge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Behavior Aware Modeling (BAM), an algorithm that incorporates a human teacher's task demonstrations and evaluative feedback to build a model of environment transition dynamics (in addition to goal inference) for sequential tasks. It claims that BAM outperforms approaches that do not explicitly use this teacher-provided dynamics knowledge, based on evaluations in simulation and with real human teachers.

Significance. If the empirical results hold and the claimed separation of dynamics knowledge from goal information is valid without substantial bias, BAM would address a clear gap in interactive learning by enabling more complete use of human input for environment modeling, potentially improving sample efficiency for robots learning user-defined sequential tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that BAM 'can outperform approaches which do not explicitly consider this source of dynamics knowledge' is asserted on the basis of simulation and human-teacher evaluations, yet the abstract (and the provided manuscript excerpt) supplies no experimental details, metrics, baselines, quantitative results, or statistical tests, so the data-to-claim link cannot be verified.
  2. [Method / Evaluation] The central claim requires that teacher demonstrations and evaluative feedback supply integrable transition-dynamics knowledge that can be separated from goal information without substantial teacher bias or noise. No mechanism, loss term, or validation experiment is described to ensure the learned model captures goal-independent dynamics rather than goal-conditioned behavior (e.g., safe or efficient paths preferred by the teacher for the specific task). This assumption is load-bearing for the outperformance result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point-by-point below, indicating where revisions will be made to the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that BAM 'can outperform approaches which do not explicitly consider this source of dynamics knowledge' is asserted on the basis of simulation and human-teacher evaluations, yet the abstract (and the provided manuscript excerpt) supplies no experimental details, metrics, baselines, quantitative results, or statistical tests, so the data-to-claim link cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is a high-level summary and does not contain the specific experimental details. The full manuscript describes the simulation and human-teacher evaluations, including baselines, metrics, and results, in the Evaluation section. To strengthen verifiability, we will revise the abstract to include a concise summary of the key quantitative findings and statistical comparisons. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method / Evaluation] The central claim requires that teacher demonstrations and evaluative feedback supply integrable transition-dynamics knowledge that can be separated from goal information without substantial teacher bias or noise. No mechanism, loss term, or validation experiment is described to ensure the learned model captures goal-independent dynamics rather than goal-conditioned behavior (e.g., safe or efficient paths preferred by the teacher for the specific task). This assumption is load-bearing for the outperformance result.

    Authors: BAM models transition dynamics P(s'|s,a) from demonstrations separately from goal inference, which is performed via the evaluative feedback signal. We acknowledge that an explicit validation experiment confirming the dynamics model is not goal-conditioned would strengthen the paper. We will add a targeted analysis or experiment demonstrating this separation in the revised version. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces the BAM algorithm for incorporating teacher demonstrations and feedback into transition dynamics modeling, with claims supported by empirical evaluation in simulation and with real human teachers on external tasks. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are presented in the provided text that reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or prior author work. The central claim rests on algorithmic description and performance comparisons rather than tautological reduction, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides no information on free parameters, background axioms, or new postulated entities; the algorithm is described only at the level of inputs and claimed benefit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5662 in / 1045 out tokens · 38231 ms · 2026-05-24T19:26:14.576681+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbeel, P., and Ng, A. Y . 2004. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learn- ing. ACM

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    D.; Chernova, S.; Veloso, M.; and Browning, B

    Argall, B. D.; Chernova, S.; Veloso, M.; and Browning, B. 2009. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 57(5):469 – 483

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    G., and Schaal, S

    Atkeson, C. G., and Schaal, S. 1997. Robot learning from demonstration. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97, 12–20

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Bain, M., and Sammut, C. 1995. A framework for be- havioural cloning. In Machine Intelligence 15

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Benjamini, Y ., and Yekutieli, D. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of statistics 1165–1188

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Bloem, M., and Bambos, N. 2014. Infinite time horizon maximum causal entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In Decision and Control (CDC), 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Con- ference on, 4911–4916. IEEE

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Boularias, A.; Kober, J.; and Peters, J. 2011. Relative entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence and Statistics, 182–189

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    I., and Tennenholtz, M

    Brafman, R. I., and Tennenholtz, M. 2002. R-max-a gen- eral polynomial time algorithm for near-optimal reinforce- ment learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3(Oct):213–231

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    Deisenroth, M., and Rasmussen, C. E. 2011. Pilco: A model- based and data-efficient approach to policy search. In Pro- ceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11), 465–472

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Herman, M.; Gindele, T.; Wagner, J.; Schmitt, F.; and Bur- gard, W. 2016. Inverse reinforcement learning with simul- taneous estimation of rewards and dynamics. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 102–110

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Knox, B.; Stone, P.; and Breazeal, C. 2013. Training a robot via human feedback: A case study. In Social Robotics, vol- ume 8239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 460–470

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    L.; Taylor, M

    Loftin, R.; Peng, B.; MacGlashan, J.; Littman, M. L.; Taylor, M. E.; Huang, J.; and Roberts, D. L. 2016. Learning behav- iors via human-delivered discrete feedback: modeling im- plicit feedback strategies to speed up learning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30(1):30–59

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    MacGlashan, J., and Littman, M. L. 2015. Between imita- tion and intention learning. In IJCAI, 3692–3698

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Neu, G., and Szepesv´ari, C. 2007. Apprenticeship learning using inverse reinforcement learning and gradient methods. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Conference on Uncer- tainty in Artificial Intelligence, 295–302. AUAI Press

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Y ., and Russell, S

    Ng, A. Y ., and Russell, S. J. 2000. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 663–670

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    Pomerleau, D. A. 1989. Alvinn: An autonomous land vehi- cle in a neural network. In Advances in neural information processing systems, 305–313

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    Ramachandran, D. 2007. Bayesian inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Ross, S.; Gordon, G.; and Bagnell, D. 2011. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret on- line learning. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, 627–635

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    S.; Precup, D.; and Singh, S

    Sutton, R. S.; Precup, D.; and Singh, S. 1999. Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstrac- tion in reinforcement learning. Artificial intelligence 112(1- 2):181–211

    work page 1999

  20. [20]

    Syed, U.; Bowling, M.; and Schapire, R. E. 2008. Appren- ticeship learning using linear programming. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning , 1032–1039. ACM

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Tamar, A.; Wu, Y .; Thomas, G.; Levine, S.; and Abbeel, P. 2016. Value iteration networks. In Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 2154–2162

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Vroman, M. C. 2014. Maximum likelihood inverse rein- forcement learning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick. Appendix A User Interface for Human-Subjects Experiments Figure 5: A screen shot of the user interface for the user study conducted through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The interface is currently in the tutorial...

    work page 2014