Latent Reward: LLM-Empowered Credit Assignment in Episodic Reinforcement Learning

Boyuan Wang; Chang Liu; Cheems Wang; Xiangyang Ji; Yixiu Mao; Yuhang Jiang; Yun Qu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Latent Reward: LLM-Empowered Credit Assignment in Episodic Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 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 LLM-derived latent rewards, not more data, are claimed to be what makes episodic credit assignment work, outperforming return-decomposition methods and even dense-reward policies on some tasks.

desk verdict Solid empirical method using LLM-generated latent rewards for return decomposition; the theory, however, is conditional on an unverified exact-representability assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11120 v2 pith:EF3YWF7V submitted 2024-12-15 cs.LG cs.AI

Yun Qu , Yuhang Jiang , Boyuan Wang , Yixiu Mao , Cheems Wang , Chang Liu , Xiangyang Ji This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords episodicreinforcementlearningcreditassignmentrewardredistributionlatentlargelanguagemodelsreturndecompositionmulti-agentself-verification

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 the bottleneck in episodic reinforcement learning—where a reward arrives only once per episode—is not the final score itself but how credit for that score is assigned to individual steps and agents. It introduces LaRe, which asks a large language model to write code that turns each state-action pair into a short vector of semantically meaningful "latent rewards," such as height, stability, and torque efficiency, and then learns a small decoder that redistributes the episodic reward through those vectors. The authors argue that this multidimensional encoding removes reward-irrelevant redundancy and aligns step contributions with the task's true objectives, making reward decomposition easier and training more sample-efficient. Their central empirical claim is that LaRe outperforms state-of-the-art return-decomposition methods and, on some tasks, even policies trained with ground-truth dense rewards. The wider significance, if correct, is that semantic prior knowledge can be injected into reinforcement learning without hand-designed reward shaping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the latent reward: a function $\varphi: \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A} \to \mathbb{D}$ with $\|\mathbb{D}\| < \|\mathcal{S}\|\,\|\mathcal{A}\|$ that maps each state-action pair to a short vector of interpretable performance factors. It is generated by prompting a large language model with a templated role instruction plus a task description, having the model write a Python evaluation function, then running candidate responses through self-prompting and pre-verification so the returned function is executable and stable. A neural decoder $f_\psi$ then turns $\varphi(s_t,a_t)$ into proxy rewards $\hat{r}_t$, trained by minimizing least-squares error against the episodic return, and any reinforcement learning algorithm can consume these proxy rewards. The same latent vector also supports per-agent credit by running the encoder separately for each agent's observation and decoding individual rewards.

What would settle it

Collect a dense dataset of $(s,a,r)$ triples from an environment and test whether the LLM's $\varphi$ admits an $f^*$ with $r = f^*(\varphi(s,a))$: if the best achievable prediction error of a powerful model on $\varphi(s,a)$ remains substantially above the noise level, the central representability assumption is violated. A second decisive check is whether a task-relevant cue deliberately hidden from the prompt but present in the state, once included in the true reward, goes undetected by LaRe and makes it match rather than beat raw-state return decomposition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a low-dimensional, semantically interpretable encoding of state-action information—the latent reward, written as $\mathbf{z}_r = \varphi(s,a)$—can carry the episodic reward decomposition, and that a large language model can supply that encoding as executable code without task-specific training. The paper formalizes the episodic reward as integrated over step rewards $r_t$ and latent rewards $\mathbf{z}_{r,t}$ with a decoder $f$ and an encoder $\varphi$, and proves that when the latent space has dimension $\|\mathbb{D}\| < \|\mathcal{S}\|\,\|\mathcal{A}\|$ and a function $f^*$ exists with $r = f^*(\varphi(s,a))$, the concentration bound on reward estimation and the regret bound both shrink by replacing the raw state-action space with the latent space. Empirically, LaRe is reported to beat state-of-the-art return-decomposition baselines on MuJoCo locomotion, MPE cooperative and competitive tasks, SMAC maps, and a novel task, and to match or exceed dense-reward policies where the latent reward's facets capture stability and safety that the ground-truth reward ignores.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the LLM-generated latent reward function keeps everything needed to predict the true step rewards while discarding only irrelevant details; if it omits a reward-relevant feature, the tighter theoretical bounds no longer apply and the empirical advantage has no supporting guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Episodic reward decomposition no longer has to start from raw state vectors; any task expressible in symbolic observations can get an LLM-written encoder that compresses the state before reward regression.
The framework is agnostic to the choice of reinforcement learning backbone, so the latent reward can be dropped into TD3, SAC, DDPG, PPO, IPPO, or QMIX without changing the policy learner.
In multi-agent settings the same mechanism assigns credit across agents, not just across time, which the paper shows is decisive in cooperative and competitive tasks.
When the ground-truth reward misses factors such as stability or safety, latent rewards can encode those factors and yield policies that outperform dense-reward training, suggesting that the reward signal, not just the learning algorithm, limits current reinforcement learning.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: beating dense ground-truth rewards on some tasks implies those benchmark rewards are misspecified relative to the intended objective; LaRe is implicitly doing reward design, not just redistribution, and this should be tested by evaluating final policies under a held-out task-success metric rather than the training reward.
Editorial inference: the theory's benefit is conditional on $\varphi$ preserving all reward-relevant information; a practical validation would be to fit $f^*$ on a dense sample and check whether $r = f^*(\varphi(s,a))$ holds, since the paper does not verify this for its LLM-generated encoders.
Editorial inference: the same code-as-bridge recipe should transfer to image observations using a vision-language model that emits object-level symbolic features, and to offline episodic reinforcement learning where replay data is fixed.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The two things you need to know: LaRe is a clean, well-evaluated method that uses an LLM to write a code function mapping state-action pairs to a low-dimensional 'latent reward' vector, then feeds that vector into standard return decomposition. Empirically it is strong: improvements over RD, RRD, IRCR, Diaster, AREL, STAS across MuJoCo, MPE, SMAC, plus a novel Triangle Area task, with five seeds and reasonable ablations. The second thing: the theoretical section, which claims tighter reward-estimation concentration and regret bounds than raw-state return decomposition, rests entirely on an assumption that the LLM-generated phi satisfies r = f*(phi(s,a)) with the latent dimension smaller than |S||A|. The paper never checks this, and the executability self-verification in Eq. (5) only tests that the code runs on random state-action pairs. High Pearson correlation between latent rewards and ground-truth rewards (Table 1) does not rule out collisions, so the stated mechanism is unproven for the actual encoder.

What is genuinely new: the idea of asking an LLM for a semantic, multi-dimensional performance evaluation and using it as the input to return decomposition. That's a sensible way to inject prior knowledge, and the self-prompting plus pre-verification pipeline is a practical answer to LLM randomness. The ablations are thoughtful: removing the reward decoder (LaRe w/o RM) still beats episodic-only TD3, showing the latent reward carries signal; the VIB comparison argues for LLM priors over a learned bottleneck; the Triangle Area task addresses LLM familiarity concerns. The paper also honestly reports that LLM code without pre-verification fails often, and includes a fully sparse reward experiment even though it sits outside the sum-form assumption.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Proposition 1 and 2 are re-statements of Efroni et al. (2021) with D in place of S×A; that's fine as a conditional statement, but the abstract and conclusion phrase it as a proven advantage of the method. The missing piece is any evidence that the LLM's phi is exactly sufficient. Approximate sufficiency or reward shaping could explain the empirical gains. Also, the claim about beating dense reward policies is qualified to 'certain tasks' and the plots show it is often comparable rather than clearly better - that is a fair description, not a flaw. Reproducibility depends on a non-deterministic LLM API, but the code is promised and the self-prompting reduces variance.

Who should read it: anyone working on sparse-reward RL, LLM-based reward design, or return decomposition. The empirical recipes are useful even if the theory needs tightening. This deserves a serious refereeing - the method is new and the experiments are thorough, though a referee should press on the sufficiency assumption and ask for either a verification procedure or a careful rephrasing of the theory as conditional on a latent-feature assumption.

My recommendation: engage with it. The paper is worth publishing after revision, but the theoretical claims need to be scaled back or backed by an explicit check.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LaRe, an episodic-RL credit-assignment method in which an LLM-generated, executable function φ maps state-action pairs into a low-dimensional 'latent reward' vector; a learned decoder f_ψ redistributes the episodic return as proxy rewards, and these proxy rewards are used by any base RL algorithm. Self-prompting over n candidate responses and pre-verification of code executability are introduced to stabilize LLM inference. The analysis claims that, under an exact representability assumption r = f*(φ(s,a)) with ‖D‖ < ‖S‖‖A‖, replacing raw state-action features by φ yields tighter concentration and regret bounds (Propositions 1 and 2). Experiments on MuJoCo, MPE, SMAC, and a newly designed Triangle Area task compare LaRe with return-decomposition and multi-agent baselines and with dense-reward training, reporting consistent improvements across five seeds.

Significance. If the claims hold, LaRe is a practically useful and transferable way to inject LLM priors into episodic RL: it is algorithm-agnostic, applicable to single- and multi-agent settings, requires no per-task training of the encoder, and the released code together with five-seed evaluations across six benchmarks give the empirical claims unusual breadth. The newly designed Triangle Area task and the self-verification mechanism are also genuine strengths. The theoretical contribution, however, is conditional and inherits essentially all of its content from Efroni et al. (2021); the novelty rests on the unverified assumption that the LLM-produced φ is exactly reward-sufficient, so the significance of the theory depends on whether that assumption can be checked or relaxed.

major comments (3)

[Analysis, before Proposition 1; Eq. (5); Table 1] The theoretical claims are conditional on the assumption that there exists f* with r = f*(φ(s,a)) and ‖D‖ < ‖S‖‖A‖, but the paper never verifies this exact representability condition for the LLM-generated φ that LaRe actually uses. Equation (5) checks only that φ is executable on pre-collected random state-action pairs, and the Pearson correlations in Table 1 do not rule out collisions, i.e., two state-action pairs with different rewards mapped to the same latent vector; if such collisions exist, the concentration and regret bounds in Propositions 1 and 2 do not apply to the actual encoder. I recommend adding a direct sufficiency check (for example, measuring residual reward variance conditional on φ, or quantifying reward-label collisions in φ on a large collected sample) or explicitly reframing the theory as conditional on a property that the empirical component supports only approximately.
[Analysis, Propositions 1 and 2; Appendix B] These results are direct restatements of Efroni, Merlis, and Mannor (2021) with ‖S‖‖A‖ replaced by ‖D‖; once the assumption r = f*(φ(s,a)) is granted, the tighter bound follows by construction because ‖D‖ < ‖S‖‖A‖. The manuscript should state this inheritance more transparently and should not present the inequality as an independently established theoretical advantage. The sole load-bearing novelty is the assumed existence of such a φ, and that is exactly the part of the argument that the paper does not verify.
[Appendix B, proof of Proposition 1 (definition of η_k)] The proof introduces a 'noisy version' ar r of the reward function and asserts that η_k = Σ_t (ar r(z_{k,t}) - r(z_{k,t})) is √(T/4)-sub-Gaussian as a centered sum of T conditionally independent [0,1]-bounded variables, but the data-generating process for ar r and the filtration are not specified sufficiently to derive this conditional independence. In the main text's episodic setting, R(τ) = Σ_t r(s_t,a_t) with a deterministic r, in which case η_k is zero unless an auxiliary stochastic reward model is assumed. Please clarify the stochastic model and either justify the conditional sub-Gaussian claim or state the bound only for stochastic rewards that satisfy that condition.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (5) and surrounding text] The notation is inconsistent: the text says φ takes a state-action pair (s,a), but Eq. (5) writes z_r = φ(s); please correct the argument list.
[Appendix C, Baseline implementations] There is a typo, 'we repreduced Diaster', which should be 'we reproduced Diaster'.
[Appendix D, Triangle Area] The sentence 'LaRe achieves superior performance compared to the baselines and is comparible with IPPO trained with dense rewards, , consistent with the main results' contains two typos ('comparible' and a doubled comma).
[Appendix C, Task descriptions] In the Walker2d-v4 description, 'walk in the in the forward direction' contains a duplicated phrase; also, 'ground true rewards' appears in the main text and should be 'ground-truth rewards'.
[Table 1] The header 'exerate' is unclear; it should be 'execution rate' or 'exe rate' with a space, and the table caption would benefit from defining what the percentage refers to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LaRe's theoretical bounds are conditional corollaries of Efroni et al. (2021), and the unverified representability of phi is an assumption gap, not an input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The Analysis section explicitly frames Propositions 1 and 2 as built on Efroni, Merlis, and Mannor (2021): it assumes a latent reward phi with exists f* such that r = f*(phi(s,a)) and ||D|| < ||S||||A||, then substitutes ||D|| into the existing concentration and regret bounds. That is a valid conditional derivation, not a circular one: the assumption is a premise, not a fitted parameter or a definition of the conclusion. The paper does not verify that the LLM-generated phi is reward-sufficient--Eq. (5) only checks executability and Table 1 reports Pearson correlations, which do not imply Var(r|phi)=0--but this is a missing-support/correctness caveat, not a circular step. The self-citation to Wang et al. (2024) for the code-bridging rationale is not load-bearing because LaRe independently measures executability (Table 1) and its end-to-end performance against external baselines. Propositions 1 and 2 are derivative statements of an external theorem rather than renamed predictions whose inputs were fitted to their outputs, so no circularity is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the existence and quality of the LLM-generated latent reward encoder. The theory borrows standard bandit regret machinery and assumes both a sum-form episodic reward and exact representability of the true reward as a function of the latent reward; the latter is not verified. The empirical method works with whatever features the LLM returns.

free parameters (2)

Latent reward dimension ∥D∥ = varies per task; LLM output (e.g., 5-6 factors)
The theoretical improvement over raw states requires ∥D∥ < ∥S∥∥A∥, but the number of latent dimensions is whatever the LLM returns and is not tuned or justified beyond the executability check.
Number of candidate responses n = 5
Hyperparameter for self-prompting; ablation (Appendix F.1) shows insensitivity once n is large enough, but it is chosen by hand.

assumptions (6)

standard math Abbasi-Yadkori et al. (2011) Theorem 2 (linear bandit concentration bound)
Used as the base inequality in the proof of Proposition 1 (Appendix B).
standard math Efroni et al. (2021) Lemma 8 (occupancy-measure regret bound)
Used to derive Eq. (7) and the regret bound in Proposition 2.
domain assumption Episodic rewards decompose as R(τ)=Σ_t r(s_t,a_t)
Stated in the Preliminaries as a common assumption in episodic RL (citing Zhang et al. 2024b); needed for the return-decomposition objective.
ad hoc to paper There exists a latent reward function φ with ∥D∥<∥S∥∥A∥ and some f* such that r=f*(φ(s,a))
The load-bearing assumption before Proposition 1; the LLM-generated φ is not shown to satisfy exact representability.
ad hoc to paper The noise η_k is √(T/4)-sub-Gaussian as a centered sum of T conditionally independent [0,1]-bounded variables
Assumed in the proof of Proposition 1 to apply the concentration theorem; the random nature of ¯r is not clearly defined in the text.
domain assumption Finite cardinalities ∥S∥, ∥A∥, ∥D∥ for the MDP spaces
The theory uses cardinalities as in tabular MDPs, but the experiments use continuous MuJoCo states, so the bounds do not literally apply.

invented entities (1)

Latent reward z_r
purpose: A multi-dimensional, semantically interpretable summary of task performance used to redistribute episodic rewards into per-step proxy rewards.
The latent reward is a new latent variable introduced by the paper; its dimensions are chosen by an LLM from task descriptions rather than by independent measurement, and its only validation is within the paper's experiments (e.g., correlation with ground truth rewards).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Latent Reward: LLM-Empowered Credit Assignment in Episodic Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EF3YWF7V

@misc{pith2026241211120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Latent Reward: LLM-Empowered Credit Assignment in Episodic Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EF3YWF7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11120}
}

read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) often encounters delayed and sparse feedback in real-world applications, even with only episodic rewards. Previous approaches have made some progress in reward redistribution for credit assignment but still face challenges, including training difficulties due to redundancy and ambiguous attributions stemming from overlooking the multifaceted nature of mission performance evaluation. Hopefully, Large Language Model (LLM) encompasses fruitful decision-making knowledge and provides a plausible tool for reward redistribution. Even so, deploying LLM in this case is non-trivial due to the misalignment between linguistic knowledge and the symbolic form requirement, together with inherent randomness and hallucinations in inference. To tackle these issues, we introduce LaRe, a novel LLM-empowered symbolic-based decision-making framework, to improve credit assignment. Key to LaRe is the concept of the Latent Reward, which works as a multi-dimensional performance evaluation, enabling more interpretable goal attainment from various perspectives and facilitating more effective reward redistribution. We examine that semantically generated code from LLM can bridge linguistic knowledge and symbolic latent rewards, as it is executable for symbolic objects. Meanwhile, we design latent reward self-verification to increase the stability and reliability of LLM inference. Theoretically, reward-irrelevant redundancy elimination in the latent reward benefits RL performance from more accurate reward estimation. Extensive experimental results witness that LaRe (i) achieves superior temporal credit assignment to SOTA methods, (ii) excels in allocating contributions among multiple agents, and (iii) outperforms policies trained with ground truth rewards for certain tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11120 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Average episode return for tasks with different state space dimensions in MuJoCo. Notably, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average episode return for tasks with a varied number of agents in MPE. Notably, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) The task HumanoidStandup-v4 aims to make the humanoid stand up and maintain balance. (b) LLMgenerated latent rewards additionally consider implicit factors affecting stability compared to the ground truth rewards. (c) Comparison between LaRe and RD on the competi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The illustrations of tasks in MuJoCo. • Reacher-v4: The goal is to move a two-jointed robot arm close to a target that is spawned at a random position. • Walker2d-v4: The walker is a two-dimensional two-legged figure. The goal is to walk in the in the forward direction…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The illustrations of tasks in MPE. In Cooperative Navigation (CN), the agents are depicted as black dots and the navigation targets as purple dots. In Predator-Prey (PP), the predators are shown as pink dots, the preys as green dots, and the obstacles as black dots. MP…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (a) The illustration depicts a newly designed task, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Average win rate of LaRe and baseline algorithms on three maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Average episodic return of LaRe with varying number of candidate responses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The Variational Information Bottleneck shows poor performance in extracting latent rewards, underscoring the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The complete results of combining LaRe with various RL algorithms. Note that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The comparison of LaRe with LLM reward design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: The comparison of LaRe against baselines on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Visualization of latent rewards and original states after 2D dimensionality reduction using t-SNE for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

TRACE: Turn-level Reward Assignment via Credit Estimation for Long-Horizon Agents
cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Turn-level rewards from TD changes in a frozen reference model's gold-answer log-probability improve long-horizon search-agent RL on closed- and open-web benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Do not use information you are not given!

work page
[2]

Focus on the most relevant evaluation factors and use information in observation as little as possible

work page
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.04612

Agent-temporal attention for reward redistribution in episodic multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.04612. Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y . 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and act- ing in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629. Yu, C.; Velu, A.; Vinitsky, E.; Gao, J.; Wang, ...

arXiv 2022
[4]

Avoid dividing by zero!

work page
[5]

The input variable is in the form of (batch size, dim), please return a list of several evaluation factor arrays, each in the form of (batch size, 1). Please think step by step and adhere to the following JSON format (just replace the () with your answer): { Understand: (your thought about the task), Analyze: (think step by step and analyze potential posi...

work page
[6]

The code should be generic, complete and not contain omissions!

work page
[9]

The elevation of the torso (to see if the robot is standing)

work page
[10]

The angles and angular velocities of the torso and limbs (to check for stability)

work page

Show all 12 references

[11]

Reward Design

The direction and magnitude of torques (to ensure control and safety). Positive behaviors include the torso being at a higher position (indicating standing), angular velocities being small (indicating stability), and torques being within safe limits. Negative behaviors include...

2021
[500]

As shown in Fig

and used f inaltravel distance as the evaluation metric. As shown in Fig. 14, we compared LaRe against baseline methods and demonstrated that LaRe outperforms them. This superior performance may be attributed to the stronger correla- tion between latent rewards and task comple...

2000
[2022]

In ICML, 17156–17185

History compression via language models in rein- forcement learning. In ICML, 17156–17185. PMLR. Pathak, D.; Agrawal, P.; Efros, A. A.; and Darrell, T. 2017. Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction. In ICML. Patil, V . P.; Hofmarcher, M.; Dinu, M.-C.; Dorfer...

2017 arXiv
[2023]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06687

Self-Refined Large Language Model as Automated Reward Function Designer for Deep Reinforcement Learn- ing in Robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06687. Su, J.; and Zhang, Q. 2023. Subgoal Proposition Using a Vision-Language Model. In CoRL Workshop on LEAP. Sutton, R. S.; Moday...

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Do not use information you are not given!

work page

[2] [2]

Focus on the most relevant evaluation factors and use information in observation as little as possible

work page

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.04612

Agent-temporal attention for reward redistribution in episodic multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.04612. Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y . 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and act- ing in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629. Yu, C.; Velu, A.; Vinitsky, E.; Gao, J.; Wang, ...

arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Avoid dividing by zero!

work page

[5] [5]

The input variable is in the form of (batch size, dim), please return a list of several evaluation factor arrays, each in the form of (batch size, 1). Please think step by step and adhere to the following JSON format (just replace the () with your answer): { Understand: (your thought about the task), Analyze: (think step by step and analyze potential posi...

work page

[6] [6]

The code should be generic, complete and not contain omissions!

work page

[7] [9]

The elevation of the torso (to see if the robot is standing)

work page

[8] [10]

The angles and angular velocities of the torso and limbs (to check for stability)

work page