Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Robust Behavior Cloning Via Global Lipschitz Regularization

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A globally Lipschitz policy, trained with weight normalization, guarantees a linear bound on the worst-case reward drop under bounded observation perturbations.

desk verdict Useful deterministic-policy robustness certificate, but the trained policies never demonstrably satisfy it—the Lipschitz labels and loss target don't line up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19250 v2 pith:UAG24QJM submitted 2025-06-24 cs.LG cs.AI

Shili Wu , Yizhao Jin , Puhua Niu , Aniruddha Datta , Sean B. Andersson This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords behaviorcloningrobustnesscertificateLipschitzregularizationneuralnetworkadversarialperturbationsweightnormalizationimitationlearningstate-adversarialMarkovdecisionprocess
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

Behavior cloning trains a policy to copy an expert from recorded demonstrations, but during deployment the observed state can be corrupted by sensor noise or an adversary, leading to poor actions. This paper claims that if the cloned policy is globally Lipschitz, meaning that similar states always produce similar actions, then a bounded observation perturbation can reduce the expected cumulative reward by at most a fixed linear amount, giving a formal robustness certificate. It further shows how to enforce the needed Lipschitz bound during training by normalizing each layer's weight matrix and adding a regularizer that stops shrinking weights once the target constant is reached. In experiments across continuous and discrete control benchmarks, such globally Lipschitz policies keep their worst-case reward higher under adversarial and random noise than an unregularized clone or a local smoothing baseline.

What carries the argument

The central object is the global Lipschitz constant of the policy, enforced through a weight-normalized neural network. Each layer's weight matrix $W_i$ is rescaled as $\widehat{W}_i = W_i / (\mathrm{softplus}(c_i) \|W_i\|_\infty)$, so the product of these per-layer norms bounds the network's Lipschitz constant. The auxiliary loss $L(\theta) = \lambda \max(\prod_i \mathrm{softplus}(c_i) - L_{FC}^{\pi}, 0)$ sets a floor on that bound: once the product reaches the target $L_{FC}^{\pi}$, the loss is zero and stops regulating the weights. Separate theorems link this network bound to the policy-level Lipschitz constant for deterministic policies (via $\|f(x)-f(y)\|_2 \le m L_{FC}^{\pi}\|x-y\|_p$) and for categorical softmax policies (via a total-variation bound of $\frac{m^2}{2} L_{FC}^{\pi}\|x-y\|_p$), so the same certificate applies to both.

What would settle it

Train or take a LipsNet policy on an environment with a sharp reward discontinuity, such as a sparse-reward cliff, and measure the worst-case reward drop under a bounded adversarial perturbation at epsilon values past the tested range; if the drop exceeds $\alpha L_\pi \epsilon$, the certificate fails. A simpler check is to estimate the environment's Lipschitz constants $L_r$ and $L_p$ and see whether they are finite and small enough for the bound to be useful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: for an infinite-horizon Markov decision process whose reward and transition functions are Lipschitz, an $L_\pi$-Lipschitz policy facing a bounded adversary satisfies $\Theta(\pi) \leq \alpha L_\pi \epsilon$, where $\Theta(\pi)$ is the worst-case drop in expected cumulative reward, $\epsilon$ is the perturbation bound, and $\alpha$ is a constant that depends on the discount factor, the reward bound, and the environment's Lipschitz constants ($\alpha = R_{\max}/(1-\gamma)^2$ for stochastic policies and $\alpha = \frac{1}{1-\gamma}(L_r + \frac{\gamma R_{\max}}{1-\gamma} L_P)$ for deterministic policies). The paper argues this certificate can be made practical by building a fully connected network whose per-layer infinity-induced matrix norms are controlled, since the product of these norms upper-bounds the policy's global Lipschitz constant and hence the reward drop. A modified weight-normalization loss, $L(\theta) = \lambda \max(\prod_i \mathrm{softplus}(c_i) - L_{FC}^{\pi}, 0)$, tunes the network to a target Lipschitz constant without further constraining it once the target is reached. Empirically, these LipsNet policies achieve higher worst-case returns under bounded adversarial and random perturbations than vanilla behavior cloning and an adversarial smoothing baseline, with a trade-off between robustness and noise-free performance when the target constant is set too small.

Load-bearing premise

The certificate assumes the environment's rewards and transition probabilities change at most linearly with the combined state-action distance and that the perturbation is small enough; the paper does not verify either condition in the benchmark environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner can choose a target Lipschitz constant $L_\pi$ before training; smaller values give a stronger worst-case guarantee at the cost of some noise-free reward.
  • Bounded observation perturbations of size $\epsilon$ cause at most an $\alpha L_\pi \epsilon$ drop in expected cumulative reward, which is linear in the perturbation size and in the policy's smoothness.
  • Because the bound is global, it covers arbitrary bounded adversaries, not just the specific attack used during training.
  • The same weight-normalization construction can be applied to any fully connected policy network, whether the policy is deterministic or a categorical softmax policy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The certificate's reliance on an $(L_p, L_r)$-Lipschitz environment suggests the method is best suited to environments with smooth dynamics; on tasks with discontinuous rewards the bound could fail, so verifying $L_r$ and $L_p$ for a target environment would tell a practitioner whether the guarantee is meaningful.
  • Because the regularizer stops once the target constant is reached, the method should avoid the over-regularization that can occur with purely minimizing the Lipschitz constant; testing it on tasks with sparse rewards or sharp cliffs would reveal whether interpolation errors still bite.
  • The same construction could be ported to online reinforcement learning or to safer control settings, though the paper only tests behavior cloning; an extension would need to confirm that the certificate remains valid when the policy is updated during training.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies robustness of behavior cloning policies against bounded perturbations of the observed state. It defines a robustness certificate Theta(pi) as the worst-case value drop under an adversarial state perturbation, proves an upper bound on Theta(pi) in terms of the policy's Lipschitz constant under an (LP,Lr)-Lipschitz environment assumption, and derives Lipschitz bounds for deterministic, categorical, and Gaussian neural-network policies. The proposed method, LipsNet, trains a behavior-cloned policy with a weight-normalized fully connected network and a one-sided soft penalty on the product of per-layer Lipschitz bounds. Experiments on Hopper-v4, Walker2d-v4, Humanoid-v4, and Cartpole compare LipsNet with vanilla BC and the SR2L adversarial smoothing baseline under random, adversarial, and Robust Sarsa perturbations.

Significance. If the robustness certificate were actually instantiated for the trained policies, this would be a useful contribution to robust behavior cloning: it extends the SA-MDP analysis to deterministic policies, gives a clean relationship between neural-network weight norms and the policy Lipschitz constant, and proposes a simple regularization scheme. The theoretical proofs are mostly careful, and the empirical results show consistent improvements over vanilla BC, sometimes substantial ones. The main weakness is that the central quantity connecting the theory to the experiments, the achieved Lipschitz constant of the deployed policy, is never measured or reported, and the environment assumptions of the certificate are not checked. This gap is fixable within the manuscript's scope, so the work is a plausible candidate after a revision that bridges the theory to the experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Theorem 3.2 and 'Regulating Method'; §4, Table 1] The certificate in Theorem 3.1 is stated in terms of the policy Lipschitz constant L_pi, while Theorem 3.2 shows that for the proposed network the relevant bound is ||f(x)-f(y)||_2 <= m L_FC^pi ||x-y||_p. The modified loss L(theta) = lambda max(prod softplus(c_i) - L_FC^pi, 0) targets L_FC^pi, not L_pi, and is a soft penalty with lambda = 0.001. The paper reports neither the achieved product prod softplus(c_i) after training nor an empirical estimate of the deployed policy's Lipschitz constant. It is therefore unclear whether the Table 1 labels 'LipsNet-50', 'LipsNet-30', and 'LipsNet-5' refer to L_pi or to L_FC^pi; if they refer to L_pi, the training target should have been L_pi/m, and if they refer to L_FC^pi, the certificate bound is m times larger than the label suggests. This calibration gap prevents the experiments from instantiating the robustness certificate, even in principle.
  2. [§4 and Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 holds only for 'small enough epsilon' and under the (LP,Lr)-Lipschitz assumption of Definition 2.5. Section 4 does not quantify the admissible epsilon, does not estimate LP and Lr for the MuJoCo or Cartpole environments, and does not check whether the local Lipschitz function L_epsilon^pi(s) is bounded as required. A concrete test would be to measure or bound the policy's output variation over the noise balls and to report the resulting right-hand side of Theorem 3.1; without this, the results in Figures 2-3 and Table 1 demonstrate empirical gains but do not establish the claimed certificate for any deployed network. The Discussion's acknowledgment of possible 'inaccuracies in estimating the Lipschitz constant' is relevant here but does not supply the missing verification.
  3. [§3, 'Regulating Method'] Even if the target product were correctly calibrated, the auxiliary loss is a one-sided soft penalty, so convergence of the BC loss does not imply prod softplus(c_i) <= L_FC^pi. Nothing in the main text or Appendix B reports the final value of the penalty term, how often it is active, or the achieved product of layer bounds. The authors should either use a hard projection, as in the original weight-normalization approach of Liu et al. 2022, or report the achieved product so that the bound in Theorem 3.2 can actually be evaluated for the policies used in the experiments.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] There are capitalization errors: 'However, During deployment' should read 'However, during deployment', and the sentence beginning 'During deployment' after a period should not be capitalized mid-thought.
  2. [§3, Remark 4] Remark 4 says 'the input dimension m is always a fixed and known constant', but in Theorem 3.2 the network maps R^n to R^m, so m is the output/action dimension, not the input dimension; please correct the wording.
  3. [§4 and Figures 2-3] The dataset description says Cartpole-v1, while Figure 2 and Figure 3 captions say Cartpole-v0 and Table 1 says CartPole; please unify the environment naming.
  4. [Table 1] The table caption says the algorithms face 'l_infinity and l_2 bounded noise', but the table reports a single epsilon column and no norm indicator; please clarify which rows or panels correspond to which perturbation norm.
  5. [Appendix A, Theorem A.14] The KL-divergence computation for the Gaussian policy appears to drop the 1/2 factor on the quadratic term involving the mean difference; since this case is not used empirically, the factor can be corrected without affecting the main claims.
  6. [§3 and Appendix B] The method is called 'LipsNet', which is the same name as the baseline method by Song et al. 2023; please use a distinct name or explicitly disambiguate the two throughout.
  7. [Appendix B] There is a typo, 'Mojuco', in the experiment setup paragraph; it should be 'MuJoCo'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the robustness certificate is a conditional theorem, and the empirical gains are measured rather than fitted from the certificate.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.1 is a conditional bound: if the MDP is (Lp,Lr)-Lipschitz and the policy has local Lipschitz function L_pi^epsilon(s), then Theta(pi) <= alpha L_pi^epsilon(s) epsilon. The proof in Appendix A goes through the Performance Difference Lemma and the stated Lipschitz assumptions; it does not define Theta(pi) to equal alpha L_pi epsilon, and it fits no parameter from the robustness data it is used to certify. The construction via weight normalization (Section 3, 'Regulating Method') targets an upper bound L_FC^pi on the product of softplus(c_i), which is exactly the network Lipschitz bound used in Theorem 3.2; this is a controlled architecture property, not a fitted prediction of robustness. The empirical results in Table 1 and Figures 2-3 are direct measurements of reward under injected noise, not values produced by plugging the trained policy into the certificate, so the experimental improvement is independent evidence. No load-bearing self-citation occurs: the cited results (Zhang et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2022; Bukharin et al. 2023) are external and are used for standard techniques or prior versions of the bound, and Theorem 3.1 explicitly generalizes Theorem 5 of Zhang et al. rather than importing it as a black-box uniqueness constraint. The internal gap noted in the manuscript--that achieved Lipschitz constants and the product of softplus(c_i) are not reported, and the action-dimension factor m in Theorem 3.2 is not reconciled with the LipsNet labels--is a correctness and calibration risk, not a circularity: no step in the derivation assumes its own conclusion as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the Lipschitz-MDP assumption and bounded-state/reward assumptions. There are two hand-chosen hyperparameters (Lπ and λ). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Lπ (target network Lipschitz constant) = 50 (Hopper), 30 (Walker2d), 5 (Humanoid), 10 (Cartpole) in Table 1
    Hand-chosen per environment to trade off robustness and accuracy; the certificate bound scales linearly with this value.
  • λ (regularization weight) = 0.001
    Controls the strength of the hinge penalty on the Lipschitz product; set once for all experiments, not tuned per environment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The environment is (Lp, Lr)-Lipschitz (Definition 2.5): rewards and transition probabilities change at most linearly with combined state-action distance.
    Invoked for Lemma A.5 and Theorem A.7 to bound the Q-function Lipschitz constant; not verified for the Gymnasium environments.
  • domain assumption State space S is bounded with diameter C.
    Premise of the MDP definition in Section 2; needed for boundedness of the certificate.
  • standard math Reward function is bounded in [0, Rmax].
    Used in Proposition A.1 to bound V and Q by Rmax/(1-γ).
  • domain assumption Gaussian policy covariance Σ is independent of the state s.
    Appendix A.14; enables the KL-based Lipschitz bound for Gaussian policies, but is restrictive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Behavior Cloning Via Global Lipschitz Regularization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAG24QJM

@misc{pith2026250619250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Behavior Cloning Via Global Lipschitz Regularization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAG24QJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19250}
}
read the original abstract

Behavior Cloning (BC) is an effective imitation learning technique and has even been adopted in some safety-critical domains such as autonomous vehicles. BC trains a policy to mimic the behavior of an expert by using a dataset composed of only state-action pairs demonstrated by the expert, without any additional interaction with the environment. However, During deployment, the policy observations may contain measurement errors or adversarial disturbances. Since the observations may deviate from the true states, they can mislead the agent into making sub-optimal actions. In this work, we use a global Lipschitz regularization approach to enhance the robustness of the learned policy network. We then show that the resulting global Lipschitz property provides a robustness certificate to the policy with respect to different bounded norm perturbations. Then, we propose a way to construct a Lipschitz neural network that ensures the policy robustness. We empirically validate our theory across various environments in Gymnasium. Keywords: Robust Reinforcement Learning; Behavior Cloning; Lipschitz Neural Network

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LipsNet network configuration. Each MLP layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Worst-case mean reward policy-dependent noise at each noise level. (a–c) are deterministic policies; (d) is a stochastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Worst-case mean reward policy-independent noise at each noise level. (a–c) are deterministic policies; (d) is a stochas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Bukharin, A.; Li, Y.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zuo, S.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, S.; and Zhao, T. 2023. Robust Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning via Adversarial Regularization: Theoretical Foundation and Stable Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10810

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    M.; and Gaidon, A

    Codevilla, F.; Santana, E.; L \'o pez, A. M.; and Gaidon, A. 2019. Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9329--9338

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Fujimoto, S.; van Hoof, H.; and Meger, D. 2018. Addressing Function Approximation Error in Actor-Critic Methods. CoRR, abs/1802.09477

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Huang, S.; Dossa, R. F. J.; Ye, C.; Braga, J.; Chakraborty, D.; Mehta, K.; and Araújo, J. G. 2022. CleanRL: High-quality Single-file Implementations of Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(274): 1--18

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Jang, E.; Irpan, A.; Khansari, M.; Kappler, D.; Ebert, F.; Lynch, C.; Levine, S.; and Finn, C. 2022. Bc-z: Zero-shot task generalization with robotic imitation learning. In Conference on Robot Learning, 991--1002. PMLR

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M.; and Langford, J

    Kakade, S. M.; and Langford, J. 2002. Approximately Optimal Approximate Reinforcement Learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2002

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Kumar, A.; Levine, A.; and Feizi, S. 2021. Policy smoothing for provably robust reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11420

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kumar, A.; Levine, A.; Goldstein, T.; and Feizi, S. 2022. Certifying model accuracy under distribution shifts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12440

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A.; and Peres, Y

    Levin, D. A.; and Peres, Y. 2017. Markov chains and mixing times, volume 107. American Mathematical Soc

    2017

  4. [12]

    D.; Williams, F.; Jacobson, A.; Fidler, S.; and Litany, O

    Liu, H.-T. D.; Williams, F.; Jacobson, A.; Fidler, S.; and Litany, O. 2022. Learning smooth neural functions via lipschitz regularization. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceedings, 1--13

    2022

  5. [13]

    M.; and Restelli, M

    Maran, D.; Metelli, A. M.; and Restelli, M. 2022. Tight Performance Guarantees of Imitator Policies with Continuous Actions. arXiv:2212.03922

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nie, B.; Ji, J.; Fu, Y.; and Gao, Y. 2023. Improve Robustness of Reinforcement Learning against Observation Perturbations via l_ Lipschitz Policy Networks. arXiv:2312.08751

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nilim, A.; and El Ghaoui, L. 2005. Robust control of Markov decision processes with uncertain transition matrices. Operations Research, 53(5): 780--798

    2005

  8. [16]

    Panaganti, K.; Xu, Z.; Kalathil, D.; and Ghavamzadeh, M. 2023. Distributionally Robust Behavioral Cloning for Robust Imitation Learning. In 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 1342--1347. IEEE

    2023

  9. [17]

    Rachelson, E.; and Lagoudakis, M. G. 2010. On the locality of action domination in sequential decision making

    2010

  10. [18]

    Ross, S.; and Bagnell, D. 2010. Efficient reductions for imitation learning. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, 661--668. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings

    2010

  11. [19]

    Ross, S.; Gordon, G.; and Bagnell, D. 2011. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, 627--635. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings

    2011

  12. [20]

    Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov, O. 2017. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. CoRR, abs/1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shen, Q.; Li, Y.; Jiang, H.; Wang, Z.; and Zhao, T. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning with robust and smooth policy. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8707--8718. PMLR

    2020

  14. [22]

    E.; Chen, C.; Cheng, B.; Zhang, B.; Wei, J.; and Wang, X

    Song, X.; Duan, J.; Wang, W.; Li, S. E.; Chen, C.; Cheng, B.; Zhang, B.; Wei, J.; and Wang, X. S. 2023. L ips N et: A Smooth and Robust Neural Network with Adaptive L ipschitz Constant for High Accuracy Optimal Control. In Krause, A.; Brunskill, E.; Cho, K.; Engelhardt, B.; Sa...

    2023

  15. [23]

    S.; and Barto, A

    Sutton, R. S.; and Barto, A. G. 1999. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Robotica, 17(2): 229--235

    1999

  16. [24]

    Tai, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, M.; Boedecker, J.; and Burgard, W. 2016. A survey of deep network solutions for learning control in robotics: From reinforcement to imitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.07139

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Todorov, E.; Erez, T.; and Tassa, Y. 2012. MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 5026--5033. IEEE

    2012

  18. [26]

    K.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Balis, J

    Towers, M.; Terry, J. K.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Balis, J. U.; Cola, G. d.; Deleu, T.; Goulão, M.; Kallinteris, A.; KG, A.; Krimmel, M.; Perez-Vicente, R.; Pierré, A.; Schulhoff, S.; Tai, J. J.; Shen, A. T. J.; and Younis, O. G. 2023. Gymnasium

    2023

  19. [27]

    Villani, C.; et al. 2009. Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer

    2009

  20. [28]

    Zhang, B.; Jiang, D.; He, D.; and Wang, L. 2022. Rethinking lipschitz neural networks and certified robustness: A boolean function perspective. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 19398--19413

    2022

  21. [29]

    Zhang, H.; Chen, H.; Xiao, C.; Li, B.; Liu, M.; Boning, D.; and Hsieh, C.-J. 2020. Robust deep reinforcement learning against adversarial perturbations on state observations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 21024--21037

    2020

  22. [30]

    P.; Ghaoui, L

    Zhang, H.; Yu, Y.; Jiao, J.; Xing, E. P.; Ghaoui, L. E.; and Jordan, M. I. 2019. Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracy. arXiv:1901.08573

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhao, Z.; Zuo, S.; Zhao, T.; and Zhao, Y. 2022. Adversarially regularized policy learning guided by trajectory optimization. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, 844--857. PMLR

    2022

Pith tools

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