Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Graph-Guided Safe Diffuser: Topological Graph Guidance for Safe Diffusion Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Routing on a latent graph makes diffusion planning 98% collision-free

desk verdict A genuinely new hierarchical design with strong Maze2D results, but the safety theory is a Brownian-bridge bound that the locomotion experiments don't actually exercise — referee it, conditional on code and a fairer comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09484 v1 pith:U56WZUSP submitted 2026-08-10 cs.RO

Nakgyu Yang , KwangBin Lee , SooJean Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords RobotLearningDiffusionPlanningSafeLatentGraphsManifoldRuptureVQ-VAEBrownianbridgeHierarchical
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

This paper tries to establish that enforcing safety by deforming diffusion trajectories at inference time (e.g., with safety gradients) often breaks kinematic feasibility by pushing samples off the data manifold, an effect the authors call 'manifold rupture.' G2SD avoids this by moving safety enforcement to a structural level: it learns a discrete latent transition graph from expert demonstrations, prunes nodes whose representative states violate safety constraints, and solves a shortest-path problem over the safe subgraph. The low-level diffusion planner then generates short endpoint-conditioned segments between consecutive graph-grounded states, anchoring each bridge at both ends. The central claim is that this hierarchical decomposition makes the probability of exceeding the local safety margin exponentially smaller as the number of segments grows, and the reported experiments in maze navigation and locomotion show success-rate and safety-margin gains over reactive guidance baselines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-level hierarchy built from a learned latent transition graph. Offline, a VQ-VAE discretizes continuous robot states into a codebook of prototypical states; a directed edge is added between nodes when the dataset contains a transition within a local horizon, and each edge carries a cost that combines geometric distance with the negative log of the empirical transition probability. Online, nodes whose representative physical states violate safety constraints are pruned, Dijkstra's algorithm selects the least-cost path through the safe subgraph, and a diffusion model generates each segment by inpainting between the grounded start and end states. The identity that carries the safety argument is the bound of Theorem 6, which applies the Kolmogorov tail bound for Brownian bridges to each endpoint-conditioned segment and then uses the union bound, giving the exponential $2M\exp(-2M\delta_{\mathrm{safe}}^2/(\sigma^2 H))$ decay as the segment count $M$ grows.

What would settle it

On a task generated by the actual G2SD pipeline, measure the maximum per-segment deviation from the planned route and compare the empirical violation probability with the bound $2M\exp(-2M\delta_{\mathrm{safe}}^2/(\sigma^2 H))$; if the decay is slower, or if adjacent-segment residuals are strongly correlated, then Assumption 4's independence or Brownian-bridge approximation fails and the theorem's bound is not the operative safety guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a learned topological graph can act as a structural safety filter for diffusion planning, replacing inference-time safety gradients. G2SD abstracts the demonstrated data manifold into a VQ-VAE-based latent transition graph, prunes unsafe nodes, and uses Dijkstra's algorithm to find an edge-cost-optimal node sequence. The low-level diffusion planner is conditioned on the grounded start and end states of each selected edge, producing short bridges that stay anchored to data-supported transitions. Theorem 6 proves that the probability that any segment violates the local safety margin $\delta_{\mathrm{safe}}$ is at most $2M\exp\!\left(-2M\delta_{\mathrm{safe}}^2/(\sigma^2 H)\right)$, so splitting a horizon of length $H$ into $M$ equal segments tightens the bound exponentially in $M$. In Maze2D navigation this raises the collision-free goal-reaching rate from about 40–50% for the baselines to 98%, and in Walker2D/Hopper locomotion it yields the highest task scores and largest planned safety margins among the compared methods.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 4 is load-bearing: conditioned on the planned graph-node sequence, the generated segments are independent and each segment's conditional generation error follows a Brownian-bridge approximation, and if either of these fails, the exponential bound of Theorem 6 does not describe the actual violation probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the 100-episode Maze2D protocol, G2SD raises the collision-free goal-reaching rate from roughly 40–50% to 98%, with no unsafe-region or timeout failures and the largest positive Safety-SPEC margin.
  • Under receding-horizon control on Walker2D and Hopper, G2SD achieves higher task scores and larger planned safety margins than the reactive-guidance baselines while planning faster, because the long-horizon tail is retrieved from cached graph edges.
  • The theoretical bound implies that for tasks where Assumption 4 holds, increasing the number of anchored segments makes a safety violation exponentially unlikely, not merely proportionally rarer.
  • The edge-weight ablation shows that accounting for empirical transition support (positive $\lambda_{\mathrm{prob}}$) is necessary for reliable execution; distance-only edges drop success to 80%, while any positive transition-cost weight keeps success at 97–98%.
  • Replacing the diffusion bridge with geometric interpolators yields near-zero locomotion scores, so safe endpoint connections alone do not produce dynamically executable walking or hopping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates the Brownian-bridge approximation on Maze2D only; applying G2SD to locomotion with hybrid stitching uses cached graph edges rather than independently sampled segments, so whether Theorem 6's exponential bound transfers to that regime is an open empirical question.
  • A general recipe suggested by this result is to separate safety from generation: route on a discrete safe abstraction, then generate only short endpoint-conditioned subproblems, which could combine with execution-time safety filters to approach guaranteed-safe plans.
  • The paper's limitation section indicates that manipulation would need a context-aware graph rather than a flat state-centric one, so an immediate extension is a hierarchical or task-conditional graph that distinguishes contact modes and object states.
  • One testable extension is to measure the actual per-segment deviation distribution in G2SD on high-dimensional tasks and compare it against the Brownian-bridge prediction; this would either confirm Assumption 4 or show where the exponential bound should be replaced by a heavier-tailed model.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes G2SD, a hierarchical safe-diffusion planner that learns a VQ-VAE-based latent transition graph from demonstrations, prunes unsafe graph nodes, solves a shortest-path problem over the safe subgraph, and generates low-level endpoint-conditioned diffusion bridges between consecutive grounded nodes. The paper contributes a theoretical analysis of manifold rupture (Theorem 3) and a probabilistic safety-violation bound (Theorem 6) showing that segment decomposition exponentially reduces the probability of exceeding a local safety margin under a Brownian-bridge model. Experiments on Maze2D-large-v1, Walker2D-v2, and Hopper-v2 report large improvements in success rate, safety margin, and planning time over Diffuser, Truncated, Classifier Guidance, SafeDiffuser, and SHD, along with ablations on graph edge weights, VQ-VAE usage weight, and connector choice.

Significance. If the results hold, G2SD offers a structurally different way of enforcing safety in diffusion planning—moving away from reactive inference-time guidance and toward planning over a safety-pruned discrete abstraction. The paper's strengths include a formal characterization of manifold rupture (Theorem 3), an internally consistent derivation of the segment-wise bound (Theorem 6), and a substantial set of experiments and ablations, including the Appendix F comparison against geometric connectors, which cleanly demonstrates that safe endpoint interpolation is not enough for underactuated locomotion. The paper also ships empirical validation of the Brownian-bridge approximation on Maze2D and a codebook-usage ablation that diagnoses codebook collapse. The main weakness is a structural gap between the theoretical safety bound—which relies on an idealized conditional-independence and Brownian-bridge assumption validated only on Maze2D—and the locomotion evaluation, which uses cached graph-edge trajectories that are not fresh independent samples.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Assumption 4 and Theorem 6 (Eq. 10)] The exponential safety bound in Eq. (10) is derived under Assumption 4, which requires (i) conditional independence of segments given the graph-node sequence and (ii) a Brownian-bridge approximation for each segment's generation error. Appendix E validates these assumptions only on Maze2D, using fresh independent denoising per segment. In contrast, the locomotion experiments (Section 6.2 and Appendix C) use hybrid diffusion stitching: one online bridge to the first subgoal followed by cached graph-edge trajectories that are reused across receding-horizon cycles. Because the cached edges are not freshly sampled independent conditioned segments, the independence clause of Assumption 4 fails by construction for the main locomotion claims, and the bound in Eq. (10) does not apply to Table 2's safety margins.
  2. [Section 5.2, Theorem 6] The event ViolationG2SD is defined as the maximum deviation of a segment from its Brownian-bridge endpoint-conditioned mean exceeding δ_safe. This is a deviation from the planned graph route, not a collision with the unsafe region. The paper does not establish a quantitative relationship between δ_safe and the actual safety constraint function φ(·) used to compute Safety-SPEC in Eq. (15). Node pruning checks only representative states, so a graph route can pass arbitrarily close to an unsafe region while still having a large nominal δ_safe. Without such a mapping, Theorem 6 does not directly imply the improved collision-avoidance performance reported in Tables 1 and 2.
  3. [Section 6.2 and Appendix C] The locomotion evaluation uses cached graph-edge trajectories that are retrieved from prior planning iterations rather than freshly sampled. Even setting aside independence, the theoretical bound assumes M endpoint-anchored segments of equal duration generated from the diffusion model, while the actual locomotion pipeline generates only one online bridge and reuses cached edges for the tail. The paper should either analyze the actual hybrid stitching procedure or explicitly scope the theoretical claim to the non-cached setting and describe the locomotion safety results as empirical rather than consequences of Eq. (10).
  4. [Appendix E, dominance condition] The paper correctly notes that condition (6) in Theorem 3 is difficult to verify exactly and uses a surrogate—comparing the safety-force magnitude with the score magnitude at constraint-active states. This is a reasonable practical proxy, but the surrogate does not directly measure the manifold-normal component of the safety force or the curvature term in Eq. (6), so the connection between the surrogate and the theorem's sufficient condition is not strictly established. This is a limitation of the empirical support for Theorem 3, though it does not affect the internal validity of the theorem itself.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] The notation λdist c(zi, zj) has a missing space before c; it should read λdist·c(zi, zj) for clarity.
  2. [Section 6.1, Table 1] The Safety-SPEC value for Truncated is reported as -8.941e−7, which is effectively zero. Reporting it as 0.000 would be cleaner and avoid implying a meaningful negative margin.
  3. [Appendix E] The 'mean agreement with the Brownian-bridge parabolic profile is 0.890' is reported without defining the agreement metric (e.g., R², cosine similarity, normalized RMSE). Please specify the metric so the reader can interpret the value.
  4. [Section 6.3, Table 3] The ablation on αusage reports Success Rate and Safety-SPEC but not the standard deviation or number of seeds; adding error bars would strengthen the claim that the non-monotonic pattern is not noise.
  5. [Section 2, Related Work] The related-work section would benefit from a brief discussion of recent diffusion planners that incorporate safety via projection or control barrier functions beyond SafeDiffuser, such as the works cited in [10–12], to better position G2SD's contribution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 6's exponential safety bound is the Brownian-bridge assumption restated; the locomotion cached-edge stitching bypasses the independence assumption.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, Assumption 4, Lemma 5, and Theorem 6 (Eq. 10)]
    "Assumption 4 (Conditional Independence of Segments). Conditioned on the planned graph-node sequence, the generated segments are independent, and the conditional generation error in each segment is approximated by a Brownian bridge. ... Theorem 6 (Violation Probability Bound). Under Assumption 4, ... P(ViolationG2SD)≤2M exp(−2M δ_safe^2/(σ^2H))."

    Eq. (10) is obtained by substituting Δt=H/M into Lemma 5's Kolmogorov bound for a Brownian bridge and then applying a union bound; every element in the bound, including the bridge B_t^(k), δ_safe, and the violation event, is defined by Assumption 4. No property of the diffusion denoiser, the latent graph, or the endpoint conditioning enters the derivation. The claimed exponential improvement with M is the Brownian-bridge variance law σ²Δt, which was assumed rather than derived from G2SD. The abstract's statement that 'theoretical analyses ...

full rationale

The central theoretical claim is Section 5.2's Theorem 6, which bounds P(ViolationG2SD) by 2M exp(−2M δ_safe^2/(σ^2H)). Inspecting the proof shows Eq. (10) is obtained by substituting Δt=H/M into Lemma 5's Kolmogorov bound for a Brownian bridge and then applying a union bound. Every object in the bound, including the segment bridge B_t^(k), the safety threshold δ_safe, and the violation event, is supplied by Assumption 4; no property of the diffusion denoiser, the graph search, or the endpoint conditioning enters the derivation. Thus the prediction that shorter segments exponentially reduce violation probability is, by construction, the Brownian-bridge variance law σ²Δt that was assumed. The paper's abstract asserts that 'theoretical analyses ... show that G2SD improves safety,' but the theorem shows only that a Brownian-bridge model has this tail property. This is a partial circularity: the safety benefit is an input assumption, not a derived consequence of G2SD. The empirical results are self-contained benchmark measurements and are not generated from Eq. (10), so the paper is not wholly circular. Two flagged passages weaken the transfer of the theory to the headline results: Appendix C's hybrid diffusion stitching retrieves cached graph-edge trajectories for the tail in locomotion rather than freshly sampled independent segments, violating Assumption 4's independence clause by construction, and Appendix E validates the Brownian-bridge model only on Maze2D. Section 7's limitation statement concedes the bound does not guarantee safety. I found no load-bearing self-citation: the same-author reference [10] appears only in a list of related work.

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

The central safety theorem rests on Assumption 4, a Brownian-bridge model validated empirically only in the maze; the empirical safety claim additionally rests on unstated assumptions that codebook clusters are safety-homogeneous and that bridge means preserve the route margin. Several hyperparameters (alpha_usage, beta, edge weights) are tuned on the same evaluation episodes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Edge weights lambda_dist, lambda_prob = (0.2, 1.0) for Maze2D; (0.1, 1.0) for locomotion
    Balancing parameters in edge weight W (Eq. 3); ablation Table 6 shows lambda_prob > 0 is necessary for reliability, values chosen by hand.
  • VQ-VAE usage weight alpha_usage = 0.4
    Tuned using the evaluation episodes; Table 3 shows non-monotonic performance with best around 0.3-0.4, so the reported number is partly fitted.
  • Locomotion density weight beta = 0.1
    Weights log-visitation density in node utility (Eq. 13); selected by hand after Appendix F Table 7.
  • Value guidance scale (locomotion) = 0.1 for Hopper, 0.001 for Walker2D
    Used in Appendix A value-aware graph cost; chosen per environment.
  • VQ-VAE commitment weight alpha_commit = 0.25
    Standard VQ-VAE hyperparameter; not central to the claims but part of the trained graph.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: expert data is concentrated near a smooth embedded submanifold M subset of M_kin
    Section 3. Needed for the geometric setting; allowed locally for multimodal data, but the graph/VQ-VAE construction presupposes a coherent state-level projection.
  • standard math Assumption 2: M has positive reach, score is C1 and bounded on the tubular neighborhood
    Section 5.1. Ensures unique nearest-point projection and valid Taylor expansion in Theorem 3; plausible but unverified for the learned score.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: segments are conditionally independent and each segment error is a Brownian bridge
    Section 5.2 and Appendix E. This is the main unproved premise for the safety bound; empirically supported on Maze2D only, and not verified for locomotion where cached edges are used.
  • domain assumption Codebook clusters are safety-homogeneous
    Section 4.2. Pruning a node by its representative state assumes all states in the cluster have the same safety status; a cluster spanning an obstacle boundary would violate this.
  • domain assumption Generated bridge means retain the graph route's safety margin delta_safe
    Theorem 6 conditions on delta_safe as the minimum margin along the route, but the paper does not prove that the mean of each conditioned diffusion segment stays that far from the unsafe set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph-Guided Safe Diffuser: Topological Graph Guidance for Safe Diffusion Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U56WZUSP

@misc{pith2026260809484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph-Guided Safe Diffuser: Topological Graph Guidance for Safe Diffusion Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U56WZUSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09484}
}
read the original abstract

Many diffusion-based planners enforce safety through inference-time guidance, but such interleaved trajectory deformations often degrade kinematic feasibility due to manifold rupture. We propose Graph-Guided Safe Diffuser (G2SD), a hierarchical framework that leverages a high-level topological graph planner to guide a low-level diffusion model. G2SD enforces safety at a structural level by abstracting the data manifold into a learned latent graph, on which high-level planning is performed. Continuous trajectories are generated by diffusion planners, which are conditioned on the graph node representations selected by the high-level planner. Theoretical analyses demonstrate conditions under which manifold rupture occurs in diffusion planners, and show that G2SD improves safety by reducing the constraint violation probability as the number of segments increases. Experiments demonstrate that G2SD substantially outperforms baselines, increasing goal-reaching rate without any collision from 40-50% to 98% in Maze2D navigation and also achieving superior task scores in locomotion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SafeDiffuser vs. G2SD in Maze2D. Green and black dots denote start and goal, and the red circle is unsafe. Left: SafeDiffuser produces a kinematically infeasible plan that pierces the unsafe region while attempting to avoid both the obstacle and maze walls. Right: G2SD plans over the offline latent graph, where orange dots and gray lines denote nodes and edges, and red squares denote selected graph nodes. Conditioni… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Brownian-bridge-like variance profile. For conditioned diffusion segments, the normal￾ized residual variance is small near the fixed endpoints and peaks in the interior, consistent with Brownian-bridge behavior. The blue curve shows the empirical normalized variance averaged over 50 graph edges with N = 50 samples per edge, the shaded region indicates variation across edges, and the red dashed curve denotes the Brow… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Janner, Y

    M. Janner, Y . Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. Levine. Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis. InProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Z. Wang, J. J. Hunt, and M. Zhou. Diffusion policies as an expressive policy class for offline reinforcement learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(10-11):1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Xiao, T.-H

    W. Xiao, T.-H. Wang, C. Gan, R. Hasani, M. Lechner, and D. Rus. SafeDiffuser: Safe planning with diffusion probabilistic models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    van den Oord, O

    A. van den Oord, O. Vinyals, and K. Kavukcuoglu. Neural discrete representation learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    X. Yu, S. Zhang, X. Song, X. Qin, and S. Jiang. Trajectory diffusion for objectgoal navigation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:110388–110411, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Carvalho, A

    J. Carvalho, A. T. Le, P. Kicki, D. Koert, and J. Peters. Motion planning diffusion: Learning and adapting robot motion planning with diffusion models.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    M. Seo, Y . Cho, Y . Sung, P. Stone, Y . Zhu, and B. Kim. Presto: Fast motion planning using diffusion models based on key-configuration environment representation. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 10861–10867, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Dhariwal and A

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    J. Yang, S. Jang, and S. Han. SafeFlowMatcher: Safe and fast planning using flow match- ing with control barrier functions. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. To appear

    2026

  3. [11]

    Mizuta and K

    K. Mizuta and K. Leung. CoBL-Diffusion: Diffusion-based conditional robot planning in dynamic environments using control barrier and Lyapunov functions. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 13801–13808, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Cheng, X

    X. Cheng, X. Tang, and Y . Yang. Safe and stable control via Lyapunov-guided diffusion models. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-P´erez. Hierarchical task and motion planning in the now. In2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1470–1477, 2011. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980391

    2011

  6. [14]

    C. R. Garrett, R. Holladay, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-P´erez. Integrated task and motion planning.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 4:265–293, 2021. doi:10.1146/annurev-control-091420-084139

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Seker, M

    M. Seker, M. Imre, J. Piater, and J. ˇSar´ı´c. Conditional neural movement primitives. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2019. doi:10.15607/RSS.2019.XV .071

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Lavalle and J

    S. Lavalle and J. Kuffner. Rapidly-exploring random trees: Progress and prospects.Algorithmic and computational robotics: New directions, 01 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    E. W. Dijkstra. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs.Numerische Mathematik, 1: 269–271, 1959. doi:10.1007/BF01386390. 10

    1959 doi

  10. [18]

    Bl¨ochliger, M

    F. Bl¨ochliger, M. Fehr, M. Dymczyk, T. Schneider, and R. Siegwart. TopoMap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual SLAM maps. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460641

    2018

  11. [19]

    A. H. Qureshi, M. J. Bency, and M. C. Yip. Motion planning networks. In2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2118–2124, 2019. doi:10.1109/ICRA. 2019.8793889

    2019

  12. [20]

    Saroya, G

    M. Saroya, G. Best, and G. A. Hollinger. Roadmap learning for probabilistic occupancy maps with topology-informed growing neural gas.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3): 4805–4812, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Eysenbach and S

    B. Eysenbach and S. Levine. Search on the replay buffer: Bridging planning and reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, pages 15246– 15257, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Kolmogorov

    A. Kolmogorov. Sulla determinazione emp´ırica di uma legge di distribuzione. InBiblioteca Nazionale di Roma, 1933

    1933

  15. [23]

    J. Fu, A. Kumar, O. Nachum, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. D4rl: Datasets for deep data-driven reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07219, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Brockman, V

    G. Brockman, V . Cheung, L. Pettersson, J. Schneider, J. Schulman, J. Tang, and W. Zaremba. Openai gym.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C. Chen, F. Deng, K. Kawaguchi, C. Gulcehre, and S. Ahn. Simple hierarchical planning with diffusion. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. 11 A Task-Specific Cost Formulation In Section 4.2, we formulated the edge weightW(z i, zj) as a combinatio...

Pith tools

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