Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Mobile Robots through Task-Based Human Instructions using Incremental Curriculum Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A mobile robot can learn long task instructions when training is broken into sentence prefixes, the paper argues.

desk verdict Modest, honest application of curriculum learning to instruction-following navigation, but the baseline comparison is confounded and the generalization claim is mislabeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19159 v1 pith:ALJ5VGWP submitted 2024-12-26 cs.RO cs.AI

Muhammad A. Muttaqien , Ayanori Yorozu , Akihisa Ohya This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords incrementalcurriculumlearningdeepreinforcementmobilerobotnavigationvision-and-languagemultimodalQ-networkAI2-THORrewardshapingcatastrophicforgetting
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

The paper claims that a mobile robot can learn to carry out multi-step household instructions, such as "find the bread, take it, go to the fridge, and place the bread inside," if training is organized as an incremental curriculum: the full instruction is broken into progressively longer prefixes, and the robot learns each stage before moving to the next. The authors put a multimodal deep Q-network in the AI2-THOR kitchen simulator, with a frozen ResNet processing RGB images and an LSTM over GloVe embeddings processing the text, and reward completion with a stage-scaled positive reward. They report that this curriculum-trained agent succeeds on the four-stage instruction and generalizes from 3 to 9 objects, while a baseline trained without curriculum fails to learn even an intermediate stage. The wider point is that structured learning progressions, not just more data or bigger networks, may be the missing ingredient for instruction-following robots.

What carries the argument

Incremental curriculum learning (ICL) is the hand-built schedule of four instruction stages, each a prefix of the final command, trained sequentially with transfer from the previous stage. The agent itself is a Multimodal Deep Q Network (MDQN) that concatenates a frozen ResNet18 image embedding with an LSTM text embedding built from GloVe word vectors and maps the combined vector through fully connected layers to Q-values; a goal-reaching reward growing from 5.0 to 20.0 across stages plus a small per-step penalty drives the DQN update. Stage-by-stage training and incremental reward scaling together carry the argument.

What would settle it

Run the curriculum-trained agent on a held-out instruction from the paper's own Table I that was never used in training, such as "Search for the cup, take it, go to the sink, and fill the cup with water," and compare success rates against the no-curriculum baseline. If the ICL agent does not clearly outperform the baseline on such an unseen multi-step instruction, the claimed generalization to task-based human instructions fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that incremental curriculum learning is sufficient to make a deep reinforcement learning agent follow a compound task instruction in a photorealistic indoor simulator. Trained stage by stage, first "find the bread," then "find the bread, take it," and so on, the Multimodal Deep Q Network (MDQN) acquires the full behavior "find the bread, take it, go to the fridge, and place the bread inside," whereas the same architecture trained directly on the multi-step instruction does not achieve the task. The paper further claims that the staged reward design, with larger completion rewards at later stages, reduces catastrophic forgetting of earlier skills and that the learned policy transfers to a kitchen with 9 objects without architectural changes. It frames this as evidence that curriculum learning addresses both training efficiency and generalization for vision-and-language navigation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the exact instruction to be executed is known ahead of time and can be manually split into progressively longer, learnable prefixes; if a robot meets an instruction whose decomposition is unavailable or whose structure was never staged, the curriculum gives it no mechanism to learn or generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ICL works as claimed, multi-step instruction following no longer requires solving the whole task at once: decomposing instructions into sequentially learned sub-goals is enough.
  • The same frozen visual encoder and small LSTM can handle a wider object vocabulary, from 3 to 9 objects, so scaling object sets does not force a new architecture or pretrained language model.
  • Incremental reward scaling is a practical lever: larger completion rewards at later stages outperform normalized or divided rewards, so practitioners can set reward values intuitively.
  • Curriculum learning plus reward shaping mitigates catastrophic forgetting, so earlier navigation skills persist after later stages are trained.
  • The approach provides a baseline for household instruction-following in AI2-THOR against which attention-based and memory-augmented models can be compared.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's generalization test changes object count but not instruction structure; a harder hold-out would be a completely unseen instruction template from its own Table I, such as "Spot the coffee machine, turn it on, find a mug," which the curriculum never staged.
  • The curriculum is constructed by hand from the exact test command; an automatic curriculum generator based on parsing dependencies or planning would be needed to claim the method generalizes to arbitrary novel instructions.
  • The stage-4 reward is also the largest, so part of the reported benefit may come from reward magnitude rather than the order of task decomposition; ablating reward scale while keeping a fixed order would separate these factors.
  • Because the text encoder is a plain LSTM over GloVe embeddings with stop-word filtering, compositionality is limited; richer language models or attention would be a natural next step to handle paraphrases and unseen verbs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes incremental curriculum learning (ICL) for a multimodal deep Q-network (MDQN) that navigates a simulated mobile robot in AI2-THOR from RGB images and text instructions. The curriculum decomposes a compound instruction into four prefix stages (Table II) and trains with stage-dependent rewards. Experiments compare ICL with a no-curriculum baseline (Fig. 6), compare positive versus neutral reward designs (Fig. 7), test retraining on 9 objects (Figs. 8-9), and perform sensitivity analysis on maxtime, epsilon, and reward scaling (Fig. 10). The central claim is that robots trained with ICL outperform those without curriculum learning and generalize to more objects.

Significance. If the central claim were established with controlled experiments, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that task decomposition into prefix stages can stabilize deep reinforcement learning for instruction-following mobile robots. The use of AI2-THOR, a public simulator, and the simple MDQN architecture make the approach reproducible in principle. However, the evidence as presented is insufficient: the key comparison lacks a matched training budget, the generalization experiment retrains from random initialization, and no quantitative metrics or seed variance are reported. The authors are transparent about excluding attention mechanisms and about listing unseen-instruction handling as future work, which is honest, but it also confirms that the paper does not yet deliver on its generalization claim. The contribution is therefore currently at the level of a promising idea rather than a validated method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-A, Figure 6] The baseline comparison is confounded by unequal training budget. The text states that the ICL agent 'progressed through 12,000 episodes' and reached stage 2 only after completing stage 1, but it does not state how many episodes, timesteps, or gradient updates the no-ICL baseline received at the point of comparison. If the baseline was trained for fewer environment interactions, the higher reward of ICL in Figure 6 is an expected consequence of more training rather than of curriculum structure. The authors must match the training budget (or report learning curves as a function of environment steps for both methods) and report quantitative success rates.
  2. [Section V-C] The generalization claim is not supported by the experiment as described. The text says 'The training process restarts, with the model's weights and biases randomly initialized' when moving from 3 to 9 objects, so the experiment measures whether the same architecture can learn a harder task from scratch, not whether curriculum-learned skills transfer. To support generalization, the authors should test on held-out instructions or objects without retraining, or at minimum fine-tune from the pretrained weights and compare with random initialization.
  3. [Section IV-C, Table II] The curriculum stages are hand-designed as prefixes of the exact test instruction 'find the bread, take it, go to the fridge, and place the bread inside', so the reported success on this instruction is partly built into the training setup. The paper provides no mechanism for generating a curriculum for a novel instruction, and the Conclusions confirm this by listing 'recognizing unseen instructions' as future work. The authors should evaluate on instructions not seen during curriculum design, or state clearly that the method requires a manually pre-decomposed curriculum.
  4. [Section V (overall)] No quantitative success rates, error bars, or number of random seeds are reported anywhere in the experiments. The claims that ICL 'outperforms' the baseline (Abstract), that stage 4 was learned (Figure 5), and that positive reward slightly enhances convergence (Figure 7) all rest on visual inspection of single learning curves. The authors should report mean and variance over at least 3-5 seeds for all conditions, with task success rates at the end of training.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Figure references are inconsistent in capitalization and formatting: 'figure 1', 'figure 2', and 'figure 7' appear alongside 'Figure 3' and 'Figure 6'; unify the citation style.
  2. [Figures 6-10] The learning curves lack axis labels and legends identifying which curve corresponds to ICL and which to the baseline; add clear labels for readability.
  3. [Section IV-D] The action space includes 'throwing an object', but the example tasks involve placing objects (e.g., 'place the bread inside'); clarify whether placement is modeled as throwing and whether this affects task evaluation.
  4. [Conclusions and References] There is a typo 'learnin g' in the Conclusions, and reference [1] contains 'V olume' with a stray space; the manuscript should be proofread for such issues.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Curriculum stages are hand-constructed from the exact evaluation instruction, making the headline success partly built into the training design; no formal circularity in the method itself.

  1. other [Section IV-C, Table II and Section V-A]
    "Table II provides a clear example of how the complex instruction "find the bread, take it, go to the fridge, and place the bread inside" can be deconstructed into four stages, forming the basis of our curriculum design. ... stage 4 presented a challenge ... the agent demonstrated the capability to learn and execute meaningful instructions, such as "find the bread, take it, go to the fridge, and place the bread inside"."

    The curriculum is not generated by the method; it is hand-written as literal prefixes of the exact instruction later used for evaluation. Stage 4 of the curriculum is identical to the target instruction, and stages 1–3 are substrings of that same sentence. Therefore the claim "the agent demonstrated the capability to learn and execute" this instruction is, to a substantial degree, an artifact of having trained on that instruction's own decomposition rather than a prediction from an independent principle. This weakens the generalization interpretation, but it does not make the ICL-versus-baseline comparison circular in a formal sense, and the 9-object experiment in Section V-C provides some independent evidence.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters that are then renamed as predictions, no self-citations carrying a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no algebraic derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The only circularity-adjacent element is the curriculum design: Table II decomposes the very instruction used for the headline evaluation, so success on that instruction is partly designed into the training protocol. However, this is a hand-constructed training curriculum, not a statistical fit, and the paper also reports an independent generalization experiment with 9 objects (Section V-C) that does not inherit the same construction. The central ICL-versus-baseline comparison retains independent empirical content, even though the reader's noted training-budget confound is a validity concern rather than a circularity concern. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-set hyperparameters, a simulator proxy assumption, and a hand-built curriculum. No new entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Curriculum-stage goal-reaching reward = 5.0 to 20.0 depending on stage
    The goal-reaching reward is hand-set per curriculum stage; sensitivity analysis in Fig. 10(g) shows this choice strongly affects learning dynamics.
  • Epsilon decay schedule = linear decay; compared values 0.90, 0.75, 0.50
    Exploration rate and its decay schedule are chosen by hand, and the sensitivity analysis indicates they alter learning speed and final performance.
  • Episode step limit (maxtime) = 100, 200, and 400 compared
    Step limit is a manually tuned environment hyperparameter shown to affect task completion; the paper selects one value for the main experiments without justifying the choice.
  • Discretization step length and turning angle = 0.25 m and 90 degrees
    The grid-world discretization is chosen ad hoc; no ablation or comparison with other discretizations is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AI2-THOR simulation is a valid proxy for real-world mobile robot navigation
    The paper trains and evaluates entirely in AI2-THOR (Section III) and concludes that the agent shows "promising performance in real-world scenarios" (Section V-C).
  • ad hoc to paper Human instructions can be a priori decomposed into sequential curriculum stages
    Table II decomposes the target instruction into prefixes; the paper assumes this segmentation is available and beneficial, but provides no method for automatic decomposition.
  • domain assumption Pretrained ResNet18 features and GloVe embeddings are sufficient for this task
    Section IV-F fixes ResNet18 parameters and uses GloVe word embeddings, relying on the transferability of these pretrained representations without fine-tuning or ablation.
  • domain assumption DQN with concatenated CNN-LSTM embeddings converges to a useful policy in this setting
    The paper assumes standard DQN convergence behavior (Section IV-E) without theoretical guarantees or comparison to other RL algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mobile Robots through Task-Based Human Instructions using Incremental Curriculum Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALJ5VGWP

@misc{pith2026241219159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mobile Robots through Task-Based Human Instructions using Incremental Curriculum Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALJ5VGWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19159}
}
read the original abstract

This paper explores the integration of incremental curriculum learning (ICL) with deep reinforcement learning (DRL) techniques to facilitate mobile robot navigation through task-based human instruction. By adopting a curriculum that mirrors the progressive complexity encountered in human learning, our approach systematically enhances robots' ability to interpret and execute complex instructions over time. We explore the principles of DRL and its synergy with ICL, demonstrating how this combination not only improves training efficiency but also equips mobile robots with the generalization capability required for navigating through dynamic indoor environments. Empirical results indicate that robots trained with our ICL-enhanced DRL framework outperform those trained without curriculum learning, highlighting the benefits of structured learning progressions in robotic training.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two examples of AI2-THOR environment simulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bird’s-eye view kitchen room with variety of objects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshot of the mobile robot simulated within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our robot model observes RGB visual image data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of training results between agents trained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training results from each stage indicate that our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of training results between agents trained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Each curve represents the agent’s success in navigat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of sensitivity analysis for hyperparameters including maxtime, epsilon, and reward scaling during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, ”BERT: Pre- training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understand- ing,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , V olume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 4171–4186, June 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever, ”Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners,” OpenAI, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Bengio, J

    Y . Bengio, J. Louradour, R. Collobert, and J. Weston, ”Curriculum Learning,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning , Montreal, Canada, 2009, pp. 41-48

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Narvekar, B

    S. Narvekar, B. Peng, M. Leonetti, J. Sinapov, M. E. Taylor, and P. Stone, ”Curriculum Learning for Reinforcement Learning Domains: A Framework and Survey,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 21, pp. 1-50, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Cai and S

    C. Cai and S. Ferrari, ”Information-Driven Sensor Path Planning by Approximate Cell Decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 672- 689, June 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    R. Raja, A. Dutta, K.S. Venkatesh, ”New potential field method for rough terrain path planning using genetic algorithm for a 6-wheel rover,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 72, pp. 295–306, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, S. Petersen, C. Beattie, A. Sadik, I. Antonoglou, H. King, D. Kumaran, D. Wierstra, S. Legg, and D. Hassabis, ”Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 518, pp. 529-533, February 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, ”Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,” OpenAI, arXiv:1707.06347 [cs.LG], Aug. 2017

    arXiv 2017

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Y . Zhu, R. Mottaghi, E. Kolve, J. J. Lim, A. Gupta, L. Fei-Fei, and A. Farhadi, ”Target-driven Visual Navigation in Indoor Scenes using Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05143 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kulh ´anek, E

    J. Kulh ´anek, E. Derner, T. de Bruin, and R. Babu ˇska, ”Vision-based Navigation Using Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in IEEE European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR) , 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Kulh ´anek, E

    J. Kulh ´anek, E. Derner, and R. Babu ˇska, ”Visual Navigation in Real- World Indoor Environments Using End-to-End Deep Reinforcement Learning,” 2020, [Online]. Available: arXiv:2010.10903v1 [cs.RO]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    P. Shah, M. Fiser, A. Faust, J. C. Kew, and D. Hakkani-Tur, ”Fol- lowNet: Robot Navigation by Following Natural Language Directions with Deep Reinforcement Learning,” May 2018, [Online]. Available: arXiv:1805.06150v1 [cs.RO]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Shridhar, J

    M. Shridhar, J. Thomason, D. Gordon, Y . Bisk, W. Han, R. Mottaghi, L. Zettlemoyer, and D. Fox, ”ALFRED: A Benchmark for Interpret- ing Grounded Instructions for Everyday Tasks,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01734v2 [cs.CV], Mar. 2020, AskForALFRED.com

    1912 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Parisotto and R

    E. Parisotto and R. Salakhutdinov, ”Neural Map: Structured Mem- ory for Deep Reinforcement Learning,” Carnegie Mellon University, arXiv:1702.08360 [cs.LG], Feb. 2017

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Thomason, S

    J. Thomason, S. Zhang, R. Mooney, and P. Stone, ”Learning to Inter- pret Natural Language Commands through Human-Robot Dialog,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015) , Austin, TX, USA, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Gunukula, K

    N. Gunukula, K. Tiwari, and A. Bera, ”MIRACLE: Inverse Reinforce- ment and Curriculum Learning Model for Human-inspired Mobile Robot Navigation,” arXiv:2312.03651 [cs.RO], Dec. 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kolve, R

    E. Kolve, R. Mottaghi, W. Han, E. VanderBilt, L. Weihs, A. Herrasti, D. Gordon, Y . Zhu, A. Gupta, and A. Farhadi, ”AI2-THOR: An Interactive 3D Environment for Visual AI,” arXiv:1712.05474 [cs.CV], Aug. 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gordon, A

    D. Gordon, A. Kembhavi, M. Rastegari, J. Redmon, D. Fox, and A. Farhadi, ”IQA: Visual Question Answering in Interactive Environ- ments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.03316 , Sep. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Batra, A

    D. Batra, A. X. Chang, S. Chernova, A. J. Davison, J. Deng, V . Koltun, S. Levine, J. Malik, I. Mordatch, R. Mottaghi, M. Savva, H. Su, ”Rearrangement: A Challenge for Embodied AI,” arXiv:2011.01975 [cs.AI], Nov. 2020

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pashevich, D

    A. Pashevich, D. Battaglia, R. Raposo, A. Santoro, and T. Kulkarni, ”Episodic Transformer for Vision-and-Language Navigation,” 2021, [Online]. Available: arXiv:2105.06453 [cs.CV]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, ”Attention Is All You Need,” in 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Donahue, L

    J. Donahue, L. A. Hendricks, S. Guadarrama, M. Rohrbach, S. Venugopalan, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, ”Long-term Recurrent Convolutional Networks for Visual Recognition and Description,” arXiv:1411.4389 [cs.CV], May 2016

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Malinowski, M

    M. Malinowski, M. Rohrbach, and M. Fritz, ”Ask Your Neurons: A Deep Learning Approach to Visual Question Answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.02697, Nov. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wierstra, and M. Riedmiller, ”Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning,” DeepMind Technologies, arXiv:1312.5602v1 [cs.LG], Dec. 2013

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, ”Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Pennington, R

    J. Pennington, R. Socher, and C. D. Manning, ”GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 1532–1543, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K ¨opf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, ”PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-...

    2019

  20. [28]

    M. Anca, J. D. Thomas, D. Pedamonti, M. Hansen, and M. Studley, ”Achieving Goals using Reward Shaping and Curriculum Learning,” 2023, [Online]. Available: arXiv:2206.02462v2 [cs.RO]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kirkpatrick, R

    J. Kirkpatrick, R. Pascanu, N. Rabinowitz, J. Veness, G. Desjardins, A. A. Rusu, K. Milan, J. Quan, T. Ramalho, A. Grabska-Barwinska, D. Hassabis, C. Clopath, D. Kumaran, and R. Hadsell, ”Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting in Neural Networks,” 2017, [Online]. Avail- able: arXi...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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