Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Learning When to Stop: Prefix-Optimal Dynamic Diffusion Policies for Continuous Control

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read POGP learns a prefix value function over the denoising chain that both improves intermediate actions and decides when to stop, cutting denoising iterations by roughly 2.7x while keeping near-full task performance.

desk verdict Solid empirical results on adaptive diffusion stopping, but the theoretical justification for the stopping rule collapses under the paper's own deterministic setting. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05084 v1 pith:Y4OCB7ZQ submitted 2026-08-05 cs.LG cs.RO

Rohit Kumar Salla , Manoj Saravanan , Simon Stepputtis This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.RO
keywords diffusionpoliciesprefixvaluefunctionearlystoppingcontinuouscontroldynamiccomputedenoisingchainBellmanrecursionMuJoCo
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 proposes POGP, a diffusion-policy method whose central claim is that supervising every intermediate denoising step with a learned value signal pays off twice. It gives a test-time stopping rule that terminates denoising when further steps are unlikely to improve the action, cutting the average number of denoising iterations by approximately 2.7x on four MuJoCo continuous-control tasks. It also acts as an auxiliary training objective that improves even the fully denoised action, yielding roughly 3.5% higher return than the best dynamic-diffusion baseline and about 4.6% higher aggregate IQM. The mechanism is a prefix value function $V_t(s,a_t)$ trained through a Bellman-style recursion over the denoising chain, using shared-chain rollouts and a gated actor objective. The paper's empirical claims are confined to deterministic DDIM-style denoisers, which is the load-bearing assumption of the theoretical setup.

What carries the argument

The central object is the prefix value function $V_\psi(s,a_t,t)$, trained alongside the environment critic $Q$, the denoiser $\pi_\theta$, and a lightweight completion map $g_\omega$. The Hazard Bellman recursion is the identity that carries the argument: it anchors every prefix value to the terminal action's Q-value and bootstraps from the next refinement step, so value information propagates backward through the chain without requiring $K$ full rollouts per gradient step. A shared noise draw across the chain aligns gradients between the Q-objective and the prefix objective, and a confidence gate with cosine warmup delays prefix supervision until the value critic is reliable. At test time, the stopping rule halts when the consecutive prefix value difference falls below a small relative threshold for two steps, and the completion map projects the truncated action into the executable action space.

What would settle it

Run POGP with a stochastic ancestral-sampling denoiser on the same four MuJoCo environments, keeping all other settings fixed. If the reported 2.7x speedup and 98-99% retention disappear, or if the learned prefix values systematically diverge from $Q(s,a_0)$, then the deterministic-chain assumption is doing the load-bearing work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a diffusion policy for continuous control can be made both faster and better by assigning a value to every prefix of its denoising chain, not just the final action. It defines the prefix value $V_t(s,a_t)$ as the expected return of completing the chain from intermediate action $a_t$, which under a deterministic denoiser equals $Q(s,a_0)$ for any step on the same chain. A Hazard Bellman recursion $V_t(s,a_t)=h\,Q(s,a_0)+(1-h)V_{t-1}(s,\pi_\theta(s,a_t,t))$ with boundary $V_0(s,a_0)=Q(s,a_0)$ propagates value backward through the chain and is shown to be a contraction with rate $(1-h)$. This enables efficient TD-style training from a single shared chain and gives a stopping criterion from consecutive prefix value differences. POGP reports retaining 98-99% of its full-chain return at roughly a third of the compute, while also improving full-chain performance, suggesting intermediate supervision is itself a useful auxiliary objective.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the denoiser being deterministic, so that from a fixed intermediate action the completed chain always gives the same final action; if the denoiser were stochastic, the prefix value identity and the Bellman target would no longer hold as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • POGP uses roughly 6.8 to 8.6 denoising steps on average instead of 20, retaining 98-99% of its full-chain return across the four MuJoCo environments.
  • Prefix training improves the terminal action quality itself, not just truncated runs, by about 3.5% over D3P and about 4.6% in aggregate IQM over all baselines.
  • The stopping rule requires no separately learned halting network, since it derives directly from consecutive prefix value differences.
  • Adaptive compute allocation tracks task difficulty: in perturbed HalfCheetah rollouts, POGP raises its denoising steps to roughly 15-20 during recovery and drops back to roughly 3-5 in steady gait.
  • The retention advantage over a fixed-chain baseline grows with chain length, widening from about 2-3 percentage points at $K=5$ to roughly 15-17 points at $K=20$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the deterministic-denoiser assumption were relaxed to the stochastic ancestral samplers commonly used in diffusion policies, the exact identity $V_t(s,a_t)=Q(s,a_0)$ and the fixed-point target would no longer hold as stated; the stopping rule would need to account for expectation over denoising transitions, which the paper explicitly leaves as future work.
  • The same prefix value machinery could be combined with distillation or consistency-model objectives, yielding both a shorter base chain and adaptive stopping on top of it.
  • The value-grounded stopping signal could transfer to other iterative inference settings, such as deciding how many test-time computation steps a reasoning model should spend, where the cost of an extra step is weighed against expected downstream return.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes POGP (Prefix-Optimal Generative Policies), a method that trains a prefix value function over the denoising chain of a diffusion policy using a Bellman-style recursion with a hazard coefficient. This prefix value is used both as an auxiliary actor objective and as a test-time stopping signal: denoising halts when consecutive predicted prefix values stop increasing. A learned completion map projects truncated actions into the executable action space. The authors report results on four MuJoCo benchmarks against 12 baselines, claiming approximately 2.7x fewer denoising iterations with near-full-chain performance retention, and a 3.5-4.6% aggregate performance improvement over prior dynamic-diffusion and baseline methods. The empirical protocol includes 10 seed runs, IQM aggregation with 95% confidence intervals, ablations, hyperparameter sensitivity sweeps, chain-length scaling, and OOD hazard-robustness tests.

Significance. If the formal apparatus were sound, the contribution would be significant for anytime/adaptive computation in continuous-control diffusion policies: a single learned object providing both a training regularizer and a parameter-free stopping rule, with reported 2.3-2.9x compute savings at roughly 98-99% retention. The experimental methodology is a genuine strength: 10-seed evaluations, IQM aggregation with confidence intervals, detailed ablations, and sensitivity analyses are reported. However, the central theoretical claim is internally inconsistent with the paper's own deterministic-denoiser setting. Under Definition 1, the exact prefix value is independent of the denoising level t, so the stopping signal in Eq. (10) is exactly zero at the fixed point and the auxiliary gradient in Eq. (9) also vanishes. The reported benefits therefore rest on uncontrolled approximation error, not on the proposed Bellman foundation. This is a load-bearing issue that prevents acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4)-(5), (10)-(11)] Definition 1 defines V_t(s,a_t) = Q(s, π_full(s,a_t)), and Section 4.1 explicitly notes that for the deterministic denoiser π_full(s,a_t) = a_0 for every t on the same chain, so V_t(s,a_t) = Q(s,a_0). Consequently, at the fixed point of the Hazard Bellman recursion (Eq. 5) the prefix value is constant in t: if V_{t-1} = Q(s,a_0), then V_t = hQ(s,a_0) + (1-h)V_{t-1} = Q(s,a_0). The stopping signal in Eq. (10), Δ_t = V_ψ(s,a_{t-1},t-1) - V_ψ(s,a_t,t), is therefore identically zero for the exact prefix value, and the rule in Eq. (11) would halt after m=2 consecutive steps for any ϵ > 0. Proposition 2's 'flat landscape' case is not a special case but the general one in this setting. Any nonzero Δ_t observed in the experiments is function-approximation error or target-network lag, not a learned estimate of the marginal value of refinement. This invalidates the paper's central claim of a principled, value-based early-stopping rule, and it also makes the auxiliary policy gradient in Eq. (9) vanish in the exact limit. The manuscript needs either a different definition of prefix value that is genuinely t-dependent, or a formal analysis of how approximation error produces the observed nonzero signal and why that error-driven signal should be beneficial.
  2. [Appendix A.2, Proposition 1] The proof of the completion-map bias bound contains faulty algebra. The proof first derives the bound |Jδ1(π) - J_h(π)| ≤ L_r/(1-γ) E_T~h[ε_g(T)]. It then claims that since Q is L_Q-Lipschitz and Q(s,a)=r(s,a)+γV(s'), we have L_r ≤ L_Q(1-γ), 'giving the stated bound with L_Q in place of L_r/(1-γ)'. But if L_r ≤ L_Q(1-γ), then L_r/(1-γ) ≤ L_Q, which yields |...| ≤ L_Q E_T~h[ε_g(T)], not the stated L_Q/(1-γ) E_T~h[ε_g(T)]. Moreover, the inequality L_r ≤ L_Q(1-γ) is asserted without a proof that V is Lipschitz in a way that transfers Q's action-Lipschitz constant to the reward; in general, the action-Lipschitz constant of Q does not control the action-Lipschitz constant of r. This proposition is used in the main text to justify the completion-map approach, so the discrepancy matters.
  3. [Main text vs. Appendices E.2, H.1] There is a direct contradiction in the reported chain length and hazard values. Algorithm 1 and Section 4.1.1 state K=20 and h=1/K=0.05 throughout all experiments, and Table 2 is labeled K=20. However, Appendix Table 5 lists 'Denoising chain length K 10 (main), 20 (robustness)', and Appendix H.1 refers to 'default h=1/K=0.1', which corresponds to K=10. This ambiguity affects the interpretation of the 2.7x speedup claim and of all retention numbers. The authors must state unequivocally which value of K produced Tables 1-2 and reconcile the sensitivity analysis accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.2] The notation δ1 in |Jδ1(π) - J_h(π)| is never defined; presumably it denotes a different stopping hazard, but the subscript is unexplained.
  2. [Appendix E.2] Table 5 lists K=10 as the main setting, which conflicts with the main text's K=20; this is a formatting/data-integrity issue that should be corrected even after the K discrepancy is resolved.
  3. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The 'Ret.' column in Table 2 is described in the text as 'Ret.: % of POGP full-chain return', but the footnote-style explanation above the table uses 'Ret.' for a different purpose; the notation should be made consistent.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] Panel (a) is called a 'Sensitivity analysis' when it is actually an ablation of stability fixes; relabeling would avoid confusion with Section H's hyperparameter sensitivity.
  5. [Appendix H.1] The sensitivity table reports h=0.05 - 0.50, but the text says 'The default h=1/K=0.1 balances...'. Since the main text uses h=0.05, this sentence appears to describe a different default setting.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Prefix value degenerates to terminal Q under the paper's own deterministic denoiser, making the stopping signal identically zero and the auxiliary objective a rescaling of the terminal Q objective.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 and Section 4.1, Definition 1 (Eq. 4)]
    "Definition 1 (Prefix Value). For environment state s and intermediate action a_t at refinement step t: V^pi_t(s,a_t) := Q^pi(s, pi_full(s,a_t)) ... Note that for a deterministic denoiser, pi_full(s,a_t) = a_0 for any t on the same chain, so V^pi_t(s,a_t) = Q^pi(s,a0). In this work, we use a deterministic denoiser (DDIM-style) throughout all experiments."

    With the DDIM deterministic denoiser stated in Section 3, pi_full(s,a_t) returns the same terminal action a0 for every prefix of a shared chain. Thus Definition 1 makes V_t(s,a_t) equal Q(s,a0) for every t: the per-step "prefix value" is the terminal Q-value by definition. The t argument carries no information in the exact function, so the prefix-value construction is a relabeling of the final-action Q-value.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.1.1 (Eq. 5), Algorithm 1 (Eq. 7), Section 4.2 (Eqs. 10-11), Appendix A.1 (Theorem 1)]
    "y_V = h min_i Q_phi'_i(s,a0) + (1-h) V_psi'(s,a_{t-1},t-1), (7) ... By the determinism of the denoiser, a0 = pi_full(s,a_t), so the anchor Q(s,a0) in Eq. (7) corresponds exactly to the prefix value definition (Eq. 4)."

    Substituting V_{t-1}=Q(s,a0) into the Hazard Bellman operator (Eq. 5 / Eq. 7) gives V_t = hQ(s,a0) + (1-h)Q(s,a0) = Q(s,a0). Theorem 1's contraction therefore converges to a fixed point that is constant in t on every shared chain. Eq. 10's difference Delta_t is identically zero in that fixed point, so Eq. 11's "marginal gain" test is a test of approximation error, not of the value of further refinement. The claimed learned stopping signal is a bootstrap of a constant, not an independent prediction.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.1.2, Eq. 9]
    "L_pi = -E[ min_i Q_phi_i(s,a0) ] + w(n)( -E[ V_psi(s,a_{t-1},t-1) ] ). (9) ... Both a0 and a_{t-1} in Eq. (9) derive from the same shared chain, which is necessary for gradient alignment."

    At the fixed point, V_psi(s,a_{t-1},t-1)=Q(s,a0) for the same shared chain, so Eq. 9 reduces to -E[Q(s,a0)] - w(n)E[Q(s,a0)] = -(1+w(n))E[Q(s,a0)]. The "auxiliary" prefix term is the terminal Q objective with a constant weight; its gradient is a scalar rescaling of grad_theta Q(s,a0). Any benefit attributed to "supervising intermediate denoising steps" is therefore not a distinct objective in the exact limit; it is an optimization-dynamics effect, not an independent prefix-quality signal.

  2. self definitional [Appendix A.3, Proposition 2 (Eq. 24)]
    "V*_K(s,a_K) = sum_{t=1}^K w_t Q(s, pi_full(s,a_t)) (24) ... If Q(s, pi_full(s,a_t)) = Q* for all t (uniform action quality across prefixes), then V*_K = Q* for any hazard h."

    Proposition 2's premise Q(s,pi_full(s,a_t))=Q* for all t is automatically satisfied in the deterministic setting because pi_full(s,a_t)=a0 for every t on the same chain. The weighted sum in Eq. 24 collapses to Q(s,a0) times sum_t w_t = Q(s,a0) regardless of the hazard h. The flat-landscape "special case" is the general fixed point, so the proposition does not establish hazard-dependent structure; it restates the degeneracy of Definition 1.

full rationale

The paper is not relying on self-citation; its benchmark numbers are independently reported and the methods are compared against external baselines. The circularity is internal to the formalism. Definition 1 defines the prefix value as Q(s,pi_full(s,a_t)), and the paper explicitly notes that with the deterministic denoiser used throughout, pi_full(s,a_t)=a0 for any t on the same chain. Hence exact prefix values satisfy V_t(s,a_t)=Q(s,a0) at every level t. The Hazard Bellman target in Eq. 7 is a convex combination of this same Q value and the bootstrapped constant, so its unique fixed point (Theorem 1) is V_t=Q(s,a0) for all t. The stopping signal in Eq. 10, the apparent marginal value of one more denoising step, is therefore identically zero at the fixed point; under Eq. 11 the rule would halt after m consecutive steps for any epsilon, and any observed nonzero delta is function-approximation or target-lag error rather than a learned measure of refinement value. Likewise, the auxiliary actor term in Eq. 9 is -w(n)E[Q(s,a0)] at the fixed point, a rescaling of the terminal Q objective rather than an independent prefix-quality signal. Proposition 2's flat-landscape case is not special: because all prefixes map to the same a0, V*_K=Q(s,a0) for any hazard. Consequently, the paper's formal derivation of "learning when to stop" and of a separate auxiliary-prefix benefit reduces by construction to the terminal action's Q-value. This does not invalidate the empirical speedups, but it removes the claimed principled grounding for them.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework postulates no unobserved physical entities; the prefix value function is a learned estimator whose target is definitionally the terminal Q-value, and the completion map is a standard MLP. The central claim rests on domain assumptions (deterministic denoiser, calibrated value generalization) and on several hand-set hyperparameters, at least two of which (epsilon, m) directly control the headline numbers and are not swept. Together these account for the medium correctness risk.

free parameters (6)
  • hazard h = 0.05 in main text (1/K with K=20); 0.10 stated as default in Appendix H.1
    Weights terminal-Q anchor vs bootstrap in Eq. 5 and 7; controls convergence speed and bias of prefix targets. Reported inconsistently across the paper.
  • gate threshold tau = 5.0 (V-critic RMSE)
    Opens the prefix-loss gate when V RMSE drops below tau; directly affects training dynamics and seed robustness (Appendix G.1). Tuned on HalfCheetah seed 42.
  • prefix weight w_max = 0.25
    Maximum weight of the auxiliary prefix term in the actor loss (Eq. 9); tuned on HalfCheetah seed 42.
  • cosine warmup fraction = 0.1 of training steps
    Ramp schedule for w(n) in Eq. 9; tuned. Removing it reduces return and retention (Appendix C).
  • stopping thresholds epsilon, m = 0.01, 2
    Rule in Eq. 11: stop when value gain below epsilon relative for m consecutive steps. These directly produce the headline 2.7x speedup and retention numbers, but no sensitivity sweep is reported.
  • chain length K = 20 (main text); 10 listed as main in Appendix E.2 Table 5
    The full denoising chain length; a design choice that sets the compute baseline, reported inconsistently (K=10 vs 20).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Deterministic DDIM-style denoiser with a shared noise draw across the chain
    Invoked in Section 3 (Eq. 2-3) and Definition 1: it makes pi_full(s,a_t)=a_0 for all t, so every prefix value equals the terminal action Q-value and Eq. 7 needs no expectation over stochastic transitions. All experiments use this setting.
  • standard math Banach fixed-point theorem applied to the Hazard Bellman operator on a finite product space
    Used in Theorem 1 (Appendix A.1) to claim existence and uniqueness of the prefix value fixed point. The proof is correct as a sup-norm contraction with rate (1-h).
  • domain assumption Discounted infinite-horizon MDP with bounded rewards, gamma=0.99
    Stated in Section 3 and used throughout for the critic target (Eq. 6), the prefix recursion, and the Proposition 1 bound.
  • domain assumption The learned V_psi generalizes from (s,a_t,t) to terminal Q with enough calibration to drive stopping on unseen states
    Required for the stopping rule in Section 4.2 (Eq. 10-11). The paper provides calibration evidence (Figure 6c, Spearman rho 0.72-0.94) but this is an empirical generalization claim, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption Proposition 3's support-coverage suboptimality bound
    Appendix D.1 asserts a bounded suboptimality epsilon for any positive test hazard under uniform training, but epsilon is unspecified and no proof is given; the paper uses this to motivate hazard robustness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning When to Stop: Prefix-Optimal Dynamic Diffusion Policies for Continuous Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y4OCB7ZQ

@misc{pith2026260805084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning When to Stop: Prefix-Optimal Dynamic Diffusion Policies for Continuous Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y4OCB7ZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05084}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion policies are a powerful policy class for continuous control, but their iterative denoising process creates a substantial computational bottleneck. Reducing this cost requires adapting the number of denoising steps to the difficulty of each action while preserving task performance. We introduce Prefix-Optimal Generative Policies (POGP), a framework that learns a prefix value function at every intermediate denoising step through a Bellman-style recursion over the denoising chain. The prefix value function serves two purposes: it provides an auxiliary training objective that encourages intermediate outputs to become high-quality actions, and it enables a test-time stopping rule that terminates denoising when additional steps are unlikely to produce meaningful improvement. Across four MuJoCo environments and comparisons with 12 baselines, POGP reduces the required number of denoising iterations by approximately 2.7-fold while retaining near-full task performance. Compared with state-of-the-art dynamic diffusion baselines, prefix training also improves final task performance by approximately 3.5%. These results indicate that supervising intermediate denoising steps is useful not only for adaptive early stopping, but also as an auxiliary objective that improves the learned policy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Learning curves and aggregate IQM across 10 seeds. Curves show the mean across seeds, with shaded regions indicating variability. The rightmost panel reports aggregate normalized IQM. POGP’s improvement is consistent across all four environments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. POGP adaptively allocates denoising compute: (Left) Mean denoising steps per action on HalfCheetah-v4, averaged over 100 time-aligned evaluation rollouts (10 seeds × 10 episodes; shaded regions: ±1 std. dev.). At step 55, a horizontal velocity impulse (∆v = −2.5 m/s) is applied to the torso. POGP adaptively increases to ∼15–20 steps during recovery, returning to a 3–5 step baseline once gait stabilizes. D3P shows on… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows how the prefix value function Vψ(s, at, t) evolves during training for three represen￾tative refinement levels (t = 1, 5, 10) across environments. The convergence ordering (t=1 stabi￾lizes fastest, t=10 slowest) matches the Bellman recursion: levels closer to the boundary condition V0 = Q converge first and the signal propagates backward through the chain. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 100 200 300 Steps (×104 ) Vψ value… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows that the delayed gate opening correlates with an unusually slow initial critic learning phase: the environment Q-function RMSE was ∼30% higher than median at step 5K for this seed. Without reliable Q targets, the prefix critic Vψ cannot converge, so the gate corr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents comprehensive ablation and training dynamics analysis. Panel (a) identifies the shared chain mechanism (S2) as the most critical stability component, with its removal causing a 39.7-point return drop. Panels (b–d) show training dynamics relative to the confide…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Completion map analysis and prefix value calibration. (a) Projection error ϵg(T) grows sublinearly, matching the O( √ T) theoretical trend. (b) Policy retention decays linearly with completion error, governed by the Lipschitz constant LQ. (c) Spearman correlation remai…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Robot Skill Adaptation via Soft Actor-Critic Gaussian Mixture Models

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.13129. Allen Z Ren, Justin Lidard, Lars L Ankile, Anthony Simeonov, Pulkit Agrawal, Anirudha Majum- dar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Hongkai Dai, and Max Simchowitz. Diffusion policy policy optimiza- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00588,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [7]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512,

    Reinforcement Learning Journal 2026 Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512,

    arXiv 2026

  3. [8]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2408.03314. Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    Zhendong Wang, Jonathan J Hunt, and Mingyuan Zhou

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15177. Zhendong Wang, Jonathan J Hunt, and Mingyuan Zhou. Diffusion policies as an expressive policy class for offline reinforcement learning

    arXiv

  6. [11]

    Shlomo Zilberstein

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06804. Shlomo Zilberstein. Using anytime algorithms in intelligent systems.AI Magazine, 17(3):73, Mar

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    The reward difference at each step satisfies: |r(s, a0)−r(s,˜a)| ≤Lr∥a0 −˜a∥(19) =L r∥a0 −g ω(s, aT , T)∥.(20) Taking expectations and summing over the infinite horizon: |Jδ1 (π)−J h(π)| ≤E h ∞X k=0 γk|r(sk, a0)−r(s k,˜ak)| i (21) ≤ Lr 1−γ ET∼h ∥a0 −g ω(s, aT , T)∥ (22) ≤ Lr 1−γ ET∼h [ϵg(T)].(23) Reinforcement Learning Journal 2026 SinceQ π isL Q-Lipschit...

    work page 2026

  8. [14]

    distill toK ′=5

    The two gradient estimates therefore point in potentially opposing directions in parameter space. Prefix-Optimal Generative Policies Shared chains.With a shared noise drawξ, botha 0(ξ)anda t−1(ξ)derive from the same trajec- tory. By the chain rule,g Q andg V share the portion of the computational graph froma K toa t, inducing positive covariance: Cov[gQ, ...

    work page

Show all 17 references
  1. [15]

    (5) with ¯h(t) = Eh∼H[h(t)]

    D.2 Multi-Hazard Training A natural extension is to train under a distribution of hazardsHrather than a singleh: JH(π) =E h∼H Jh(π) .(31) The Hazard Bellman operator generalizes straightforwardly: replaceh(t)in Eq. (5) with ¯h(t) = Eh∼H[h(t)]. The contraction rate becomes(1−mi...

    2018

  2. [16]

    •Diffusion-QL: Diffusion policy withQ-weighted behavioral cloning loss (Wang et al., 2022)

    with 64 parallel environments, clip ϵ=0.2, 10 epochs per update. •Diffusion-QL: Diffusion policy withQ-weighted behavioral cloning loss (Wang et al., 2022). Online variant with no offline pretraining. •DPPO / D 2PPO: Diffusion policy optimized with PPO-style updates (Ren et al...

    2025

  3. [1996]

    URLhttps://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/ index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1232

    DOI: 10.1609/aimag.v17i3.1232. URLhttps://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/ index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1232. Prefix-Optimal Generative Policies Supplementary Materials The following content was not necessarily subject to peer review. A Theoretical Proofs A.1 Proof of Theorem 1: ...

    doi

  4. [2016]

    Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09991,

    Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Sergey Levine. Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09991,

    arXiv

  5. [2017]

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine

    URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/1603.08983. Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. InInternational confer- ence on machine learning, pp. 1861–1870. Pmlr,

    arXiv

  6. [2022]

    Andrea Banino, Jan Balaguer, and Charles Blundell

    URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2108.13264. Andrea Banino, Jan Balaguer, and Charles Blundell. Pondernet: Learning to ponder.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.05407,

    arXiv

  7. [2023]

    •FQL: FlowQ-learning (Wildberger et al., 2023); the flow-based policy is trained with a reflow objective to enable one-step action generation

    with 100K offline pre- training steps from a random-policy replay buffer, followed by 900K online fine-tuning. •FQL: FlowQ-learning (Wildberger et al., 2023); the flow-based policy is trained with a reflow objective to enable one-step action generation. •SAC-GMM: SAC Nematolla...

    2022

  8. [2024]

    Shutong Ding, Ke Hu, Zhenhao Zhang, Kan Ren, Weinan Zhang, Jingyi Yu, Jingya Wang, and Ye Shi

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04137. Shutong Ding, Ke Hu, Zhenhao Zhang, Kan Ren, Weinan Zhang, Jingyi Yu, Jingya Wang, and Ye Shi. Diffusion-based reinforcement learning via q-weighted variational policy optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:539...

    arXiv

  9. [2025]

    Haitong Ma, Tianyi Chen, Kai Wang, Na Li, and Bo Dai

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01381. Haitong Ma, Tianyi Chen, Kai Wang, Na Li, and Bo Dai. Efficient online reinforcement learning for diffusion policy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00361,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.