Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Learning Novel Skills from Language-Generated Demonstrations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a natural-language instruction alone can supply the training data for a novel robot manipulation skill: generated demonstration videos, labeled by an inverse dynamics model, yield zero-shot task accomplishment rates…

desk verdict DemoGen is a sensible pipeline and worth knowing about, but the headline zero-shot result is not secured by the experiments as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09286 v2 pith:43WXYSX4 submitted 2024-12-12 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Ao-Qun Jin , Tian-Yu Xiang , Xiao-Hu Zhou , Mei-Jiang Gui , Xiao-Liang Xie , Shi-Qi Liu , Shuang-Yi Wang , Yue Cao
show 3 more authors
Sheng-Bin Duan Fu-Chao Xie Zeng-Guang Hou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords robotskilllearninglanguage-conditionedimitationdemonstrationgenerationvideodiffusionmodelinversedynamicszero-shottaskacquisitionbehavioralcloningnaturallanguageinstructions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

DemoGen is a four-stage pipeline that tries to let a robot learn a brand-new manipulation skill from nothing but a natural-language instruction. A vision-language model expands the instruction into a detailed prompt, a text-to-video diffusion model renders demonstration videos of the task, an inverse dynamics model (IDM) converts those frames into state-action pairs, and an imitation learning policy maps states to actions. On a standard multi-task manipulation benchmark, policies trained on these generated demonstrations achieve roughly three times the task accomplishment rate of policies trained on expert-collected demonstrations when tested on tasks never seen during training (the zero-shot setting). If this holds, language alone could become a usable source of robot training data, removing the need for human teleoperation or environment exploration per new task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inverse dynamics model (IDM), a transformer-encoder-plus-vision-transformer network that predicts the action at time $t$ from a sliding window of $n+1$ observed states; it is what turns generated pixels into a policy-training dataset. Around it sit the video diffusion generator, a latent text-to-video model fine-tuned with pose conditioning through an adapter, and a behavioral cloning objective that minimizes the squared error between predicted actions and the IDM-extracted actions.

What would settle it

Measure the IDM's action-prediction accuracy directly on DVG-generated videos of zero-shot tasks, comparing predicted actions against ground-truth actions recorded by the simulator. If that accuracy is near chance or markedly below the 76.0-81.6% reported for expert-collected videos, the pipeline's action labels are unreliable and the downstream policy gain cannot be attributed to the generated demonstrations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that high-fidelity, task-consistent demonstration videos generated by a fine-tuned video diffusion model can serve as a substitute for human-collected expert demonstrations when learning novel skills. Given only a short task description, the pipeline expands it with a vision-language model, generates videos conditioned on text and rendered pose trajectories, and applies an IDM trained on a small number of expert episodes to label each frame sequence with actions. The resulting state-action dataset trains language-conditioned behavioral cloning policies; on unseen tasks from the benchmark, the generated data gives policies around three times the accomplishment rate of the same policies trained on expert data, with one of the evaluated policies succeeding on six of eight zero-shot tasks from generated data versus two of eight from expert data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the inverse dynamics model, trained on only 20 expert demonstrations per few-shot task, assigns correct action labels to video frames of zero-shot tasks it has never seen, even though roughly 40% of those generated videos are acknowledged to be erroneous and human raters judged only 63.2% of zero-shot videos as accomplishing the task.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot can be given a novel task and receive a training signal without any expert demonstration of that task, reducing data-collection labor and teleoperation cost.
  • Zero-shot skill acquisition becomes a matter of prompt quality: richer language expansions and better video generations should raise downstream policy success without additional robot interaction.
  • The IDM's ability to label generated videos controls the ceiling of the pipeline, so improvements in IDM generalization should transfer directly into higher accomplishment rates.
  • Any task expressible as a natural-language description becomes a candidate for automatic demonstration generation, so task coverage can grow by adding prompts rather than by collecting episodes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader may infer that the IDM is the bottleneck: if it labels imperfect generated videos poorly, the threefold zero-shot gain would shrink, and a validation filter that discards the roughly 40% erroneous generations would likely widen the gap.
  • The reported trend that more training tasks help IDM generalization more than more trajectories per task suggests the pipeline would improve faster by broadening IDM training diversity than by collecting more demonstrations per task.
  • Because human raters judged only 63.2% of zero-shot generated videos as accomplishing the task, testing policies trained only on human-approved videos versus all generated videos would isolate how much of the gain comes from video fidelity versus IDM robustness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. DemoGen is a four-module pipeline for learning robot manipulation skills from natural language instructions. A vision-language model expands task descriptions, a fine-tuned text-to-video diffusion model (DVG) generates demonstration videos, an inverse dynamics model (IDM) converts video frames into state-action pairs, and an imitation learning model (ILM, LCBC or RT-1) learns a policy by behavioral cloning. The paper evaluates the pipeline on MetaWorld tasks under a two-fold split, comparing policies trained on expert demonstrations with policies trained on generated demonstrations. The headline claim is that in the zero-shot setting, generated demonstrations yield 'nearly three times the task accomplishment rates' of expert-data baselines (6/8 and 5/8 versus 2/8 in Table 4). The paper also reports human evaluation of generated video quality and an appendix with failure cases and an IDM generalization study.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, DemoGen would be a meaningful step toward replacing expert demonstrations and environment interaction with text-only inputs for novel manipulation skills. The modular design is sensible, the use of existing components (GLM-4, Tune-A-Video, IDM, LCBC, RT-1) makes the approach accessible, and the inclusion of a two-fold split, human evaluation, and explicit failure cases is a strength. However, as it stands the evidence is not sufficient: the IDM's ability to label the generated videos, which is the key transfer point, is never measured, and the headline comparison is based on binary task-level checkmarks without statistical basis. These are correctable with additional experiments and reporting, rather than fundamental flaws in the pipeline concept.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4.2, Table 4] The headline claim of 'nearly three times the task accomplishment rates' rests on Table 4, which reports only binary checkmarks over eight task categories with no number of evaluation episodes, seeds, variance, confidence intervals, or statistical test. A change from 2/8 to 6/8 for LCBC and 2/8 to 5/8 for RT-1 is not sufficient to establish a threefold improvement. The authors should report per-task success rates with multiple seeds and mean/std, clarify what a checkmark denotes (for example, any successful episode versus a success-rate threshold), and explain how the eight columns map to the 22 tasks described in §3.1.
  2. [§2.1.3, Eq. (5), Algorithm 2, Appendix A.2] The load-bearing assumption is that the IDM trained on expert demonstrations from few-shot tasks can label actions in DVG-generated videos for zero-shot tasks. Appendix Table 5 reports IDM accuracy only on expert-collected videos and under training configurations (5/45 tasks, 50/100 trajectories) that do not match the main setting (20 trajectories per few-shot task). Meanwhile Appendix A.2 states that roughly 40% of novel-task generations are erroneous, Table 3 gives a 63.2% human-rated accomplishment rate for zero-shot generated videos, and no validation/filtering module is implemented ('a designed validation module' is future work). Without measuring IDM action-label accuracy on the exact generated videos used in Table 4, the downstream policy results cannot be attributed to correct state-action extraction. The authors should add this measurement or implement filtering and report results on the filtered data.
  3. [§3.4.2, Table 4] The text states that in the few-shot setting the generated demonstrations achieved performance comparable to expert data, but Table 4 shows RT-1 dropping from 8/8 with expert data to 4/8 with generated data, while LCBC changes from 5/8 to 6/8. This is a substantial degradation for one of the two ILMs and contradicts the claim that 'the quality of the generated demonstrations is similar to the collected manipulations.' The authors should explain this discrepancy or soften the few-shot comparability claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4.1] The text says performance 'slightly decreased under the few-shot learning setting,' but Table 3 shows few-shot learning with higher scores on all three criteria (88.3/92.5/96.1) than zero-shot learning (57.9/63.2/71.6); the sentence should refer to the zero-shot setting.
  2. [§3.4.1] The phrase 'Visualization results in Table 3' is incorrect because Table 3 is the human-evaluation table; the reference should likely be to Fig. 3 or Fig. 5.
  3. [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2, titled 'Novel skill scheme,' ends after DVG video generation and omits the IDM action-extraction and ILM training steps described in §2.2 and §2.3; these steps should be included for the algorithm to match the pipeline description.
  4. [§3.3.1, Table 3] The human evaluation relies on four evaluators; reporting inter-annotator agreement or individual evaluator scores would strengthen the reliability of the demonstration-quality metrics.
  5. [§3.2.3] The VLM is the closed-source GLM-4-0520; for reproducibility the authors should specify the exact API version, prompt templates, and sampling parameters, since small prompt differences can change the generated demonstrations.
  6. [§1] There are minor typographical issues in the introduction, including 'enbles' and 'assiting'; these should be corrected in a revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported downstream accomplishment rates are empirical measurements, not quantities derived by construction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, each stage has an independent external grounding. The VLM expands prompts (Eq. 1), the DVG is fine-tuned on expert videos and pose data (Eqs. 2-4), the IDM is trained on expert demonstrations from few-shot tasks via the loss in Eq. 5, and the ILM is trained with the behavioral-cloning loss in Eq. 6. The headline zero-shot result is a measured task accomplishment rate on MetaWorld (Table 4), not a quantity that is definitionally equal to any training loss or fitted parameter. Critically, the IDM is not trained on the generated zero-shot videos whose action labels it produces, so its output is not forced by construction; the paper separately reports IDM accuracy only on expert-collected videos (Appendix Table 5). There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited components (GLM, Tune-A-Video, Code as Policies, RT-1, LCBC) are external prior work, not results by the present authors invoked to forbid alternatives. Appendix A.2 does disclose a substantial limitation, stating that DVG errors occur in approximately 40% of novel-task generations and that no validation module is yet available; this is a real empirical validity risk about distribution shift in the generated videos, but it is not a circular reduction. No equation or table in the paper defines a reported prediction in terms of its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters (IDM temporal window 12, video skip step 3, unreported number of generated demos per task) and on assumptions about the closed-source VLM's reliability, IDM transfer from expert to generated videos, and the validity of a four-rater human evaluation. No new physical entities are introduced; the pipeline integrates existing models.

free parameters (3)
  • IDM temporal window size = 12 frames
    Chosen for IDM input in Section 3.2.3; no ablation reported, yet it directly controls the context used for action prediction.
  • Video sampling skip step = 3 (up to 36 frames per video)
    Downsampling for DVG training stated in Section 3.2.2; arbitrary choice that affects video fidelity and temporal resolution.
  • Number of generated demonstrations per task M = not reported
    Algorithm 2 uses M but the paper never states its value; the ILM results depend on how many generated demonstrations are used.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Closed-source VLM GLM-4-0520 returns consistent, physically grounded prompt expansions and pose scripts
    The whole pipeline's output quality is gated by this proprietary model's behavior, which is not reproducible or auditable (Section 3.2.3, Algorithm 2).
  • domain assumption IDM trained on few-shot expert demos generalizes to zero-shot generated videos
    The paper reports IDM generalization on expert-collected data (Appendix Table 5) but never measures IDM accuracy on generated videos, the actual deployment input (Appendix A.3).
  • domain assumption Human evaluations by four raters are a valid measure of demonstration quality
    Subjective labels without inter-annotator agreement statistics are used as a key quality metric (Section 3.3.1).
  • domain assumption MetaWorld simulation results indicate what would happen on real robots
    The paper explicitly defers real-world validation to future work (Section 4), yet the abstract and conclusions generalize to robots broadly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Novel Skills from Language-Generated Demonstrations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43WXYSX4

@misc{pith2026241209286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Novel Skills from Language-Generated Demonstrations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43WXYSX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09286}
}
read the original abstract

Robots are increasingly deployed across diverse domains to tackle tasks requiring novel skills. However, current robot learning algorithms for acquiring novel skills often rely on demonstration datasets or environment interactions, resulting in high labor costs and potential safety risks. To address these challenges, this study proposes DemoGen, a skill-learning framework that enables robots to acquire novel skills from natural language instructions. DemoGen leverages the vision-language model and the video diffusion model to generate demonstration videos of novel skills, which enabling robots to learn new skills effectively. Experimental evaluations in the MetaWorld simulation environments demonstrate the pipeline's capability to generate high-fidelity and reliable demonstrations. Using the generated demonstrations, various skill learning algorithms achieve an accomplishment rate three times the original on novel tasks. These results highlight a novel approach to robot learning, offering a foundation for the intuitive and intelligent acquisition of novel robotic skills. (Project website: https://aoqunjin.github.io/LNSLGD/)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of the novel skill learning steps of the DemoGen’s pipeline. For each task, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of DemoGen. The task learning process involves four modules: vision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The proposed framework can generate demonstrations that show fidelity, diversity (a, b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cosine similarity matrices between prompt embeddings of different tasks (c). The em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The frame sequences of the generated robot actions, which keep the consistency with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of failure cases in DVG-generated demonstrations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey of robot learning from demonstration

    Brenna D Argall, Sonia Chernova, Manuela Veloso, and Brett Browning. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 57 0 (5): 0 469--483, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image-editing diffusion models

    Kevin Black, Mitsuhiko Nakamoto, Pranav Atreya, Homer Walke, Chelsea Finn, Aviral Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Zero-shot robotic manipulation with pretrained image-editing diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10639, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances

    Anthony Brohan, Yevgen Chebotar, Chelsea Finn, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Julian Ibarz, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Ryan Julian, et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. In Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 287--318. PMLR, 2023 a

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    R T -1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale

    Anthony Brohan et al. R T -1: Robotics transformer for real-world control at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06817, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    R T -2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

    Anthony Brohan et al. R T -2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023 b

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways

    Aakanksha Chowdhery et al. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (240): 0 1--113, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model

    Danny Driess et al. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation

    Yilun Du, Sherry Yang, Bo Dai, Hanjun Dai, Ofir Nachum, Josh Tenenbaum, Dale Schuurmans, and Pieter Abbeel. Learning universal policies via text-guided video generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning

    Javier Garc a and Fernando Fern \'a ndez. A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16 0 (1): 0 1437--1480, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools

    Team GLM, Aohan Zeng, Bin Xu, Bowen Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Dan Zhang, Diego Rojas, Guanyu Feng, Hanlin Zhao, et al. Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12793, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A review of safe reinforcement learning: Methods, theories, and applications

    Shangding Gu, Long Yang, Yali Du, Guang Chen, Florian Walter, Jun Wang, and Alois Knoll. A review of safe reinforcement learning: Methods, theories, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46 0 (12): 0 11216--11235, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic manipulation

    Dmitry Kalashnikov et al. Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic manipulation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 651--673, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.\ 9493--9500, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models

    Yixin Liu et al. Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation

    Ajay Mandlekar et al. Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 879--893, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Ben Mann, N Ryder, M Subbiah, J Kaplan, P Dhariwal, A Neelakantan, P Shyam, G Sastry, A Askell, S Agarwal, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 1, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. T2i-adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08453, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 8162--8171, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models

    Abby O'Neill et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08864, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Safe exploration techniques for reinforcement learning--an overview

    Martin Pecka and Tomas Svoboda. Safe exploration techniques for reinforcement learning--an overview. In Proceedings of the Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems: First International Workshop, MESAS 2014, Rome, pp.\ 357--375. Springer, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21 0 (1): 0 5485--5551, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    A generalist agent

    Scott Reed et al. A generalist agent. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj \"o rn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 10684--10695, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Learning physical collaborative robot behaviors from human demonstrations

    Leonel Rozo, Sylvain Calinon, Darwin G Caldwell, Pablo Jimenez, and Carme Torras. Learning physical collaborative robot behaviors from human demonstrations. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 32 0 (3): 0 513--527, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation

    Mohit Shridhar, Lucas Manuelli, and Dieter Fox. Perceiver-actor: A multi-task transformer for robotic manipulation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 785--799, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks

    Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Mariano Phielipp, Stefan Lee, Chitta Baral, and Heni Ben Amor. Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot manipulation tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 13139--13150, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale

    Homer Rich Walke et al. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 1723--1736, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning

    Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-world: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 1094--1100, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  25. [33]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  26. [34]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  27. [35]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.