Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Towards Autonomous Wood-Log Grasping with a Forestry Crane: Simulator and Benchmarking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reinforcement-learning controller trained in a new MuJoCo simulator grasps and lifts varied-diameter wood logs with a forestry crane at a success rate above 96% in Monte Carlo trials.

desk verdict Useful simulator and benchmark for forestry-crane grasping, but the 96% success claim rests on an unspecified threshold and a reward offset that points below ground for most log sizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01304 v1 pith:5XUQC6P3 submitted 2025-02-03 cs.RO

Minh Nhat Vu , Alexander Wachter , Gerald Ebmer , Marc-Philip Ecker , Tobias Glück , Anh Nguyen , Wolfgang Kemmetmueller , Andreas Kugi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords forestrycranereinforcementlearningloggraspingMuJoCosimulatorproximalpolicyoptimizationlatentMarkovdecisionprocessbenchmarksim-to-real
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 makes the case that an autonomous forestry crane can learn to grasp and lift heavy wood logs of varying diameter entirely from reinforcement learning in a custom MuJoCo simulator. It reports that the trained mPPO policy succeeds in over 96% of Monte Carlo trials spanning log diameters from 0.3 to 0.8 m and randomized initial crane configurations, and still about 92% of trials when the log-pose input is corrupted with measurement error. The contribution is a reproducible open-source benchmark: the simulator built from CAD data, the reward functions, and the modified PPO algorithm. The result matters because forestry cranes are hydraulically actuated, underactuated, and currently operated manually by a shrinking pool of skilled operators; a simulator-trained controller that works would make automation far cheaper and safer to develop.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the MuJoCo simulator of the 8-DoF forestry crane built from CAD data, with 38 rigid bodies, two pairs of synchronized joints, and signed-distance-field collision primitives for the grapple jaws; the latent-MDP training setup where log diameter is a latent variable sampled uniformly across episodes; and the mPPO algorithm, a variant of PPO that uses a Beta distribution for the policy (so actions inherently respect joint-velocity limits) and perturbs sampled actions with uniform noise $g \sim U(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ clipped to $[0,1]$ (with $\epsilon=0.1$) to aid exploration. The reward function is the fourth component: it sums distance, grapple, lift, and balance terms, each designed to dominate at a different stage of the grasping task.

What would settle it

Run the trained mPPO policy on the physical forestry crane using the same Monte Carlo protocol (six log diameters, 100 trials per diameter, randomized initial configurations) and compare the success rate to the reported 96%. A more direct measurement is to record the actual joint velocity tracking error of the hydraulic actuators during a grasping sequence and check whether it exceeds the bounds implicitly assumed by the ideal velocity controller in the simulator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that a model-free RL policy can perform the complete wood-log grasping cycle—approaching, aligning the grapple, closing on the log, lifting it, and stabilizing the load—in simulation with a success rate exceeding 96% across logs of diameter 0.3–0.8 m and random crane initializations. The key modification is mPPO, which replaces the Gaussian policy distribution of standard PPO with a Beta distribution so that commanded joint velocities always lie within the admissible range, and which adds a small uniform perturbation to sampled actions during training to encourage exploration in the large search space. The policy is trained under the latent-MDP formulation in which the log diameter is a latent variable sampled uniformly, forcing the agent to serve all diameters without retraining. The reward function decomposes the task into four sequenced terms (distance, grapple, lift, balance), and the paper shows that the same reward and simulator produce stronger cumulative reward with mPPO than with standard PPO, TRPO, or Recurrent PPO. When the assumed log pose is perturbed by up to ±10% measurement error, the success rate drops only to about 92%, indicating some tolerance for perception noise.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes an ideal underlying velocity controller for the six actuated joints, neglecting hydraulic actuator dynamics, delays, and pump flow limits; if the real crane's joints cannot track the commanded velocities closely, the simulator-trained policy's success rate could drop substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single mPPO policy, trained once, covers the full log-diameter range from 0.3 to 0.8 m without retraining, because the latent-MDP formulation treats diameter as a latent variable.
  • The benchmark defines a fixed success protocol (reach within 6 s, grasp fully within 9 s, grasp near the log's center) that other researchers can adopt for quantitative comparison.
  • Adding up to ±10% relative measurement error to the log pose lowers success from >96% to approximately 92%, giving a concrete accuracy target for the perception system.
  • The mPPO variant runs at roughly 6500 simulation steps per second, about four times faster than TRPO and Recurrent PPO, making large-scale training practical on a single desktop GPU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 96% figure is a simulation number obtained under ideal velocity control; a real deployment will likely require domain randomization on hydraulic parameters to keep the success rate, and the paper's own limitation section acknowledges this as the main open gap.
  • Because the policy is trained with the log pose given, the practical bottleneck in the field is probably the pose-estimation system; the ±10% noise test implies the perception pipeline only needs to keep relative pose errors within that range for success.
  • The latent-MDP framing with diameter as the latent variable should extend to other varying log properties, such as length or mass, as long as they are sampled during training, which could remove the fixed-length restriction in the current simulator.
  • A direct comparison between the ideal velocity controller and a simulated hydraulic actuator model (with pump flow limits and delays) in the same MuJoCo scene would quantify how much of the promised performance depends on that assumption.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a MuJoCo-based simulation environment for an 8-DOF forestry crane with two unactuated joints, and trains a modified PPO agent (Beta distribution plus uniform perturbation) to grasp cylindrical wood logs of varying diameter (0.3-0.8 m) and random initial poses. In 600 Monte Carlo trials (100 per diameter), the agent achieves a 96.3% success rate in simulation for reaching, grasping, and lifting the log. The paper also benchmarks against TRPO, RecurrentPPO, and PPO, and tests robustness to pose measurement errors.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the simulator and benchmark would provide a useful testbed for RL-based control of large-scale hydraulic manipulators, a domain with few open environments. The Monte Carlo protocol with failure-cause breakdown and the robustness test with pose error are strengths, and the paper is generally clearly written. The novelty of the algorithmic contribution is modest: the Beta distribution policy is known, and the exploration perturbation is adapted from RPO. The central 96% claim is sensitive to a few unspecified evaluation details (Section V-C) and to the construction of the augmented relative distance (Eq. (4)); these issues are addressed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-B.1, Eq. (4)] The augmented relative distance defines the target z-coordinate as z_l - (d_max - z_l)/2. For a log of diameter d resting on flat ground, z_l = d/2, so the target z-coordinate becomes 0.75d - 0.4, which is below the ground plane for all d < 0.533 m. Since Delta-p is part of the observation O (IV-B.1) and enters the reward through d_combine in Eq. (9), the policy is trained to drive the grapple center toward a physically infeasible point for most of the claimed diameter range. The manuscript should either justify this offset as an intentional pre-grasp configuration relative to the grapple geometry (with reference to the CAD model) or correct the formula, and it should report the center-miss threshold used in the success criterion (Section V-C) to show that the 96% success rate is not an artifact of this biased target.
  2. [Section V-C] The success criterion is not fully specified: the "particular threshold value" for missing the center is never given, and "fully grasp the log" is not defined in terms of measurable quantities (e.g., joint angle q8 threshold, contact forces, or lift height). Without these definitions, the reported success rates in Tables I and II are not reproducible. This is load-bearing because the policy is trained with the same d_combine metric used in the early-termination criterion (IV-B.3), so the evaluation could partially measure optimization of the training objective rather than actual grasp quality.
  3. [Abstract and Section I] The paper states that it provides "an open-source benchmark for the community," but no code, simulator, or dataset repository is provided; the only external link is a demonstration video. For a paper whose central contribution is a simulator and benchmark, the absence of a code release link makes the claim unverifiable and the contribution incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-D] Typo: "sim-to-read gap" should be "sim-to-real gap".
  2. [Section IV-B.2] The reward weights omega1, omega2, and omega3 in Eqs. (9)-(12) are user-defined parameters but their values are never reported; these should be given for reproducibility.
  3. [Section IV-B.3] The early-termination threshold epsilon in the criterion "d_combine < epsilon" is not specified.
  4. [Section III-B] The description of the randomized log region is vague ("the center of this region is approximately 6.5 m from the crane's base"); please provide the region's geometry or bounds.
  5. [General] The spelling of "MuJoCo" is inconsistent (e.g., "Mujoco" in the abstract and Section V).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 96% success rate is an empirical simulation result, not a derivation from fitted inputs; the reward/evaluation overlap is a validity caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical Monte Carlo success rate (96%) of an RL policy trained and evaluated in the same MuJoCo simulator, not a derived prediction. The reward function (Eqs. 9, 10, 14) is built from dcombine and the success criterion includes a 'misses the center' threshold, so there is a partial overlap between training objective and evaluation. However, success also requires reaching the log within 6 s and fully grasping and lifting it, which are checked by the physics simulation independently of the reward terms, and the paper reports failures due to time limits and swinging, not only dcombine. No equation makes the reported success rate equal to a fitted parameter or to the reward by construction. Self-citations ([8], [12], [21]) are used for context (pose estimation, trajectory re-planning, CAD schematic) and are not load-bearing. The Eq. (4) target offset (z = 0.75d - 0.4, below ground for d < 0.533 m) is a modeling/correctness concern rather than circularity, since the 96% figure is an empirical result that could be wrong for that reason. Thus no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical simulation result. Its dependence on hand-tuned reward weights and unspecified success thresholds means several free parameters are not disclosed. The key axioms are idealized actuation and externally provided log pose, both systematically simplified relative to the physical system.

free parameters (5)
  • Reward weights omega1, omega2, omega3 = not specified
    User-defined parameters in Eqs. (9)-(13) that shape the reward; their values are never given, yet the learned behavior is sensitive to them.
  • Exploration perturbation epsilon = 0.1
    Eq. (20) adds uniform noise in [-0.1, 0.1] to sampled actions; chosen by hand.
  • Center-miss threshold for success = not specified
    Section V-C defines success in part by 'a particular threshold value' for missing the log center, but the value is never given.
  • Discount factor gamma = not specified
    Used in the objective (2); no numerical value provided.
  • Time limits t_limit and t_max = 6 s and 9 s
    Episode termination and success time bounds, hand-set in Section IV-B.3 and V-C.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Log pose is provided to the agent
    The observation includes the 4-DoF reduced pose of the log (Sec. IV-B.1); the conclusion states results are 'under the assumption that the log pose is given' (Sec. VI). If perception is inaccurate beyond the tested noise, performance will degrade.
  • domain assumption Ideal velocity controller for actuated joints
    Section III-B assumes an ideal underlying velocity controller for the six actuated joints, ignoring hydraulic actuator dynamics. This is a strong simplification for a hydraulic crane.
  • domain assumption MuJoCo SDF collision model is accurate for grasp contacts
    Section III-B uses MuJoCo with signed distance field collisions; the fidelity of the contact model for grapple-log interaction is assumed without experimental validation.
  • domain assumption Uniform random distribution of log diameters
    Section III-B and IV-A sample log diameters uniformly in [0.3, 0.8] m; this defines the benchmark's task distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Autonomous Wood-Log Grasping with a Forestry Crane: Simulator and Benchmarking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XUQC6P3

@misc{pith2026250201304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Autonomous Wood-Log Grasping with a Forestry Crane: Simulator and Benchmarking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XUQC6P3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01304}
}
read the original abstract

Forestry machines operated in forest production environments face challenges when performing manipulation tasks, especially regarding the complicated dynamics of underactuated crane systems and the heavy weight of logs to be grasped. This study investigates the feasibility of using reinforcement learning for forestry crane manipulators in grasping and lifting heavy wood logs autonomously. We first build a simulator using Mujoco physics engine to create realistic scenarios, including modeling a forestry crane with 8 degrees of freedom from CAD data and wood logs of different sizes. We further implement a velocity controller for autonomous log grasping with deep reinforcement learning using a curriculum strategy. Utilizing our new simulator, the proposed control strategy exhibits a success rate of 96% when grasping logs of different diameters and under random initial configurations of the forestry crane. In addition, reward functions and reinforcement learning baselines are implemented to provide an open-source benchmark for the community in large-scale manipulation tasks. A video with several demonstrations can be seen at https://www.acin.tuwien.ac.at/en/d18a/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Snapshot of the simulated environment. While the logs’ length is fixed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates the schematic of the forestry crane. It has eight degrees of freedom (DoFs) q T = [q T A, q T U ] consisting of six actuated DoFs q T A = [q1, q2, q3, q4, q7, q8] and two unactuated joints q T U = [q5, q6]. Note that there are 68,04° 49,62° 28,72° 32,45 mm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Details of variables used for constructing the observations and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of cumulative rewards over 12000 update steps of the optimizer. algorithms. The network architecture, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sequence of images from a grasping demonstration with the log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Increasing the level of automation in the forestry logging process with crane trajectory planning and control,

    D. Ortiz Morales, S. Westerberg, P. X. La Hera, U. Mettin, L. Frei- dovich, and A. S. Shiriaev, “Increasing the level of automation in the forestry logging process with crane trajectory planning and control,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 343–363, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Coordinated motion of a hydraulic forestry crane and a vehicle using nonlinear model predictive control,

    J. Kalmari, J. Backman, and A. Visala, “Coordinated motion of a hydraulic forestry crane and a vehicle using nonlinear model predictive control,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 133, pp. 119– 127, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: lessons we have learned,

    J. Ibarz, J. Tan, C. Finn, M. Kalakrishnan, P. Pastor, and S. Levine, “How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: lessons we have learned,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 40, no. 4-5, pp. 698–721, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    The limits and potentials of deep learning for robotics,

    N. S ¨underhauf, O. Brock, W. Scheirer, R. Hadsell, D. Fox, J. Leitner, B. Upcroft, P. Abbeel, W. Burgard, M. Milford, et al., “The limits and potentials of deep learning for robotics,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 4-5, pp. 405–420, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Language-driven 6-dof grasp detection using negative prompt guidance,

    T. Nguyen, M. N. Vu, B. Huang, A. Vuong, Q. Vuong, N. Le, T. V o, and A. Nguyen, “Language-driven 6-dof grasp detection using negative prompt guidance,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 363–381

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Robohive: A unified framework for robot learn- ing,

    V . Kumar, R. Shah, G. Zhou, V . Moens, V . Caggiano, A. Gupta, and A. Rajeswaran, “Robohive: A unified framework for robot learn- ing,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, Eds., vol. 36, 2023, pp. 44 323–44 340

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,

    M. Mittal, C. Yu, Q. Yu, J. Liu, N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, J. L. Yuan, R. Singh, Y . Guo, H. Mazhar, et al. , “Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3740–3747, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Grasp-anything: Large-scale grasp dataset from foundation models,

    A. D. Vuong, M. N. Vu, H. Le, B. Huang, H. T. T. Binh, T. V o, A. Kugi, and A. Nguyen, “Grasp-anything: Large-scale grasp dataset from foundation models,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 14 030–14 037

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Dexterous robotic manipulation using deep reinforcement learning and knowledge transfer for complex sparse reward-based tasks,

    Q. Wang, F. R. Sanchez, R. McCarthy, D. C. Bulens, K. McGuinness, N. O’Connor, M. W¨uthrich, F. Widmaier, S. Bauer, and S. J. Redmond, “Dexterous robotic manipulation using deep reinforcement learning and knowledge transfer for complex sparse reward-based tasks,” Ex- pert Syst...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hacman: Learning hybrid actor-critic maps for 6d non-prehensile manipulation,

    W. Zhou, B. Jiang, F. Yang, C. Paxton, and D. Held, “Hacman: Learning hybrid actor-critic maps for 6d non-prehensile manipulation,” in Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Learning , ser. Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Tan, M. Toussaint, and K. Darvish, E...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Language-driven grasp detection,

    A. D. Vuong, M. N. Vu, B. Huang, N. Nguyen, H. Le, T. V o, and A. Nguyen, “Language-driven grasp detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 17 902–17 912

    2024

  4. [12]

    Online trajectory re- planner for dynamically grasping irregular objects,

    M. N. Vu, F. Grander, and A. Nguyen, “Online trajectory re- planner for dynamically grasping irregular objects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17968, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Maniskill: Generalizable manipulation skill bench- mark with large-scale demonstrations,

    T. Mu, Z. Ling, F. Xiang, D. Yang, X. Li, X. Li, S. Tao, Z. Huang, Z. Jia, and H. Su, “Maniskill: Generalizable manipulation skill bench- mark with large-scale demonstrations,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , vol. 1, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Reinforcement learning control of a forestry crane manipulator,

    J. Andersson, K. Bodin, D. Lindmark, M. Servin, and E. Wallin, “Reinforcement learning control of a forestry crane manipulator,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2021, pp. 2121–2126

    2021

  7. [15]

    Grasp planning with cnn for log-loading forestry machine,

    E. Ayoub, P. Levesque, and I. Sharf, “Grasp planning with cnn for log-loading forestry machine,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2023, pp. 11 802–11 808

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nonlinear model predictive control of hydraulic forestry crane with automatic sway damping,

    J. Kalmari, J. Backman, and A. Visala, “Nonlinear model predictive control of hydraulic forestry crane with automatic sway damping,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 109, pp. 36–45, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Model-based development of control systems for forestry cranes,

    P. L. Hera and D. O. Morales, “Model-based development of control systems for forestry cranes,” Journal of Control Science and Engi- neering, vol. 2015, pp. 27–27, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Autonomous control of redundant hydraulic manipulator using reinforcement learning with action feedback,

    R. Dhakate, C. Brommer, C. Bohm, H. Gietler, S. Weiss, and J. Stein- brener, “Autonomous control of redundant hydraulic manipulator using reinforcement learning with action feedback,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 7036– 7043

    2022

  11. [19]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    AGX Dynamics,

    Algoryx Simulation AB, “AGX Dynamics,” [Accessed on 01 Jan. 2024]. [Online]. Available: https://www.algoryx.se/agx-dynamics/

    2024

  13. [21]

    Iterative linear quadratic regulator for collision-free trajectory optimization and model predictive control of a timber crane,

    M.-P. Ecker, “Iterative linear quadratic regulator for collision-free trajectory optimization and model predictive control of a timber crane,” Master Thesis, TU Wien, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    M. W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar, Robot modeling and control. Wiley: New York, New York, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems , 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  16. [24]

    Interactive modeling of implicit surfaces using a direct visualization approach with signed distance functions,

    T. Reiner, G. M ¨uckl, and C. Dachsbacher, “Interactive modeling of implicit surfaces using a direct visualization approach with signed distance functions,” Computers & Graphics , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 596– 603, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Understanding domain randomization for sim-to-real transfer,

    X. Chen, J. Hu, C. Jin, L. Li, and L. Wang, “Understanding domain randomization for sim-to-real transfer,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    How to pick the domain randomization parameters for sim-to-real transfer of reinforcement learning policies?

    Q. Vuong, S. Vikram, H. Su, S. Gao, and H. I. Christensen, “How to pick the domain randomization parameters for sim-to-real transfer of reinforcement learning policies?” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11774, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bundlesdf: Neural 6-dof tracking and 3d reconstruction of unknown objects,

    B. Wen, J. Tremblay, V . Blukis, S. Tyree, T. M¨uller, A. Evans, D. Fox, J. Kautz, and S. Birchfield, “Bundlesdf: Neural 6-dof tracking and 3d reconstruction of unknown objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 606–617

    2023

  20. [28]

    Improving stochastic policy gradients in continuous control with deep reinforcement learning using the beta distribution,

    P.-W. Chou, D. Maturana, and S. Scherer, “Improving stochastic policy gradients in continuous control with deep reinforcement learning using the beta distribution,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 834–843

    2017

  21. [29]

    Leonhard euler’s integral: A historical profile of the gamma function: In memoriam: Milton abramowitz,

    P. J. Davis, “Leonhard euler’s integral: A historical profile of the gamma function: In memoriam: Milton abramowitz,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 849–869, 1959

    1959

  22. [30]

    Policy gradient algorithms,

    L. Weng, “Policy gradient algorithms,” lilianweng. github. io/lil-log , 2018 [Accessed Jan. 2024]

    2018

  23. [31]

    Cleanrl: High-quality single-file implementations of deep reinforcement learning algorithms,

    S. Huang, R. F. J. Dossa, C. Ye, J. Braga, D. Chakraborty, K. Mehta, and J. G. Ara´ujo, “Cleanrl: High-quality single-file implementations of deep reinforcement learning algorithms,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 23, no. 274, pp. 1–18, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Conjugate gradient method,

    J. L. Nazareth, “Conjugate gradient method,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 348–353, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning im- plementations,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning im- plementations,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 12 348–12 355, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” in Poster Presentations of International Conference on Learning Representations ICLR, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Trust region policy optimization,

    J. Schulman, S. Levine, P. Abbeel, M. Jordan, and P. Moritz, “Trust region policy optimization,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 1889–1897

    2015

  28. [36]

    The 37 implementation details of proximal policy optimization,

    S. Huang, R. F. J. Dossa, A. Raffin, A. Kanervisto, and W. Wang, “The 37 implementation details of proximal policy optimization,” The ICLR Blog Track 2023 [Accesed on Dec. 2023]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.