Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The paper proposes that a diffusion policy for visual navigation can learn better paths by selectively imitating its own high-reward sampled trajectories, and that this self-imitation removes the need for expensive generate-then-filter infe

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 06:16 UTC pith:TZAINMLQ

load-bearing objection Reward-weighted self-imitation for diffusion navigation is a sound combination, but the reported numbers have internal inconsistencies that need fixing before the headline claims are credible. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2601.22965 v2 pith:TZAINMLQ submitted 2026-01-30 cs.RO

Self-Imitated Diffusion Policy for Efficient and Robust Visual Navigation

Runhua Zhang , Junyi Hou , Changxu Cheng , Qiyi Chen , Tao Wang , Wuyue Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords visual navigationdiffusion policyself-imitation learningreward-guided learningtrajectory planningcurriculum learningedge deploymentsuccess weighted by path length
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that a diffusion policy for visual navigation does not have to imitate external expert demonstrations and does not need a generate-then-filter inference pipeline. Instead, the policy samples candidate trajectories from itself, keeps the ones that score well under a safety-and-efficiency reward, and trains on those with a reward-weighted loss, concentrating the trajectory distribution around high-quality modes. If true, diffusion-based navigation can run end-to-end on embedded hardware because the auxiliary critic and dense sampling become unnecessary. The authors report higher Success Rate and Success weighted by Path Length than prior methods on the InternVLA-N1 S1 benchmark, a 2.5x latency reduction on Jetson Orin Nano, and qualitative real-world deployments on two robots.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a diffusion policy's own sampled trajectories, reweighted by reward, are a better training target than expert demonstrations. Sampling N candidates from the current policy, truncating to the top-k by a reward combining collision avoidance, path efficiency, progress, and final docking, then computing a softmax-weighted denoising loss, approximates minimizing KL divergence to an optimal trajectory distribution. Iterating this update makes the policy output concentrated and consistent, so inference can use deterministic DDIM sampling with as few as five denoising steps and no selector. The reported results include 81.19% mean SR versus 71.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the reward-weighted denoising loss L_SIDP, built from reward-guided self-imitation. The policy acts as its own proposal distribution: candidate trajectories are drawn from the current policy, scored by a hand-designed reward, the top-k are kept and converted into softmax importance weights, and those weights multiply the standard diffusion denoising error. This converts the intractable goal of matching an optimal trajectory distribution into a stable iterative imitation objective, avoiding backpropagation through denoising steps while still shaping the policy toward high-reward trajectories. Two auxiliary mechanisms support it: goal-agnostic exploration expands the t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-designed reward computed from ESDF in the simulated interactive environment is a faithful proxy for real-world navigation quality, so self-imitated high-reward trajectories in synthetic scenes remain high-quality on physical robots with different depth perception.

What would settle it

Run SIDP on the benchmark with the reward components stripped down, such as only the collision penalty or only the step cost; if SR and SPL collapse to NavDP levels, the reported gains come from reward design rather than the self-imitation mechanism itself. Alternatively, a quantitative real-world trial with 100 or more episodes comparing SIDP's 5-step DDIM no-selector inference against NavDP would settle whether the 2.5x speedup and success-rate margin survive outside simulation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Diffusion navigation policies can be deployed on resource-constrained robots without an auxiliary trajectory selector, because the learned distribution is already concentrated.
  • Fewer denoising steps such as five-step DDIM become feasible without degrading success, reducing inference latency from 273 ms to 110 ms on an edge GPU.
  • Training no longer depends on the coverage and quality of expert demonstrations, since self-generated high-reward trajectories can improve the policy iteratively.
  • The same reward-weighted self-imitation objective applies to any diffusion policy that can be scored by a reward, suggesting reuse for other sequential decision tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The biggest unspoken transfer risk is the reward itself: it is computed from ESDF values in synthetic scenes, while the real-world robots use a learned depth estimator, so the simulation reward may not capture real-world safety; a quantitative real-world benchmark with the same metrics would test this.
  • A deliberately harder benchmark with scarce or suboptimal expert demonstrations would test the claim that SIDP degrades less than imitation learning when expert data quality drops.
  • The curriculum thresholds tau_max and tau_range are fixed hyperparameters; an adaptive version is a natural extension, since the paper's own ablation shows they control training stability.
  • The efficiency gain could be compounded by combining self-imitation with explicit goal-conditioning or memory, since goal-agnostic exploration is presented as a regularizer rather than a replacement for point-goal conditioning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SIDP, a self-imitating diffusion-policy training scheme for visual navigation. Instead of imitating fixed expert demonstrations, SIDP samples multiple candidate trajectories from the current policy, scores them with a hand-designed reward based on ESDF collision checks and goal progress, keeps the top-k by reward, and updates the policy with a reward-weighted denoising loss. Two auxiliary mechanisms are added: goal-agnostic exploration and a reward-driven curriculum. Experiments on the InternVLA-N1 S1 benchmark report state-of-the-art SR and mSPL over NavDP and other baselines, and an inference-latency comparison on Jetson Orin Nano reports up to a 2.5x speedup. Real-world deployments on two robots are shown qualitatively.

Significance. If the results hold, the work makes a useful contribution: it offers a stable, BPTT-free way to improve a diffusion policy from its own samples, and it removes the auxiliary trajectory selector used by prior diffusion planners, which matters for edge deployment. The derivation in Eqs. (3)-(8) is a standard REPS/advantage-weighted regression scheme and is internally consistent; the self-referential element is not circular because the target is defined by environment reward. The paper also includes a clear algorithm and several ablation experiments. However, the empirical evidence is currently weakened by reporting inconsistencies, missing statistical detail, and an under-specified training protocol, so the central quantitative claims need revision before the contribution can be assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §IV-C1, Table II] The abstract's headline claim that SIDP surpasses NavDP by 'approximately 10 points on the InternScene-Commercial setting' is not supported by Table II. The Commercial SR margin is 5.79 points (NavDP 57.38 vs SIDP 63.17). The 9.94-point figure corresponds to the mSR column (71.25 vs 81.19). The sentence in §IV-C1 saying 'In the Commercial and Home scenarios ... margins of 9.94% and 5.79% in Success Rate, respectively' is also inconsistent with the table: Home SR is NavDP 93.37 vs SIDP 94.36, a 0.99-point difference. These numbers must be corrected and disambiguated.
  2. [§IV-A1 and Table III] Table III reports SR values (NavDP 0.549, SIDP 0.670 for 10-step DDPM) that cannot be reconciled with Table II (mSR 71.25% and 81.19%). If Table III was run on the custom one-shot benchmark described in §IV-A1, this must be stated explicitly in the table caption and text; if it is the same InternVLA-N1 S1 protocol, the numbers conflict. In addition, no standard deviations or number of seeds are provided for any main-table result, so the reader cannot tell whether the reported margins (e.g., Home SR +0.99, or the DDIM 5-step SR 0.674 vs 10-step 0.670) are meaningful. Please provide seeds/error bars and state the evaluation protocol for each table.
  3. [§III-A, §IV-B1, Algorithm 1] The training procedure is described as on-policy self-imitation (Algorithm 1 samples states from 'environment E' and generates actions from the current policy), but the implementation in §IV-B1 samples initial poses from expert trajectories in InternData-N1 and evaluates trajectories offline with ESDF queries, without rolling out the policy. The objective in Eq. (3) is an expectation over the policy's state distribution D, so optimizing with states drawn from a fixed expert dataset is a distribution mismatch. This undermines the theoretical grounding of the self-imitation loop and the robustness claim. Please either present the method as an offline/off-policy variant, resample states from policy rollouts (as in DAgger), or justify why expert-state resampling suffices.
  4. [§IV-C2, Table III] The headline 2.5x speedup (110 ms vs 273 ms) is obtained by comparing SIDP with 5-step DDIM to NavDP with 10-step DDPM. The table also shows SIDP with 10-step DDPM already runs in 132 ms, so part of the gain comes from removing the selector/critic and part from scheduler/step reduction. To substantiate the claim that self-imitation enables the efficiency gain, the authors should run NavDP with DDIM and with fewer steps, or argue quantitatively why this is not a valid control. Without that, the 2.5x figure conflates algorithm and scheduler choices.
  5. [§IV-E and Abstract] The real-world experiments are purely qualitative (Fig. 7 time-lapse images). The abstract states 'real-world experiments confirming its effectiveness across multiple robotic platforms.' Given that the perception stack in the real world uses BANet-estimated depth while training uses clean simulation/ESDF, the sim-to-real claim needs quantitative support: at minimum, number of trials, success rate, collision count, and goal error on each platform. Without this, the claim of robust sim-to-real transfer is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B2 and §III-C2] Several hyperparameters are not specified: the candidate count N, truncation k, and the curriculum thresholds τ_max and τ_range. Please report these values to make the method reproducible.
  2. [Figures 3-6] The figures do not label their y-axes or define the plotted metric in the current text; e.g., Fig. 4's caption says 'ablation study...' without stating whether the vertical axis is SR or SPL. Please add axis labels and metric definitions.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The notation in Eq. (8) is garbled: 'a(i),tdn' should be something like \hat{a}^{(i)}_{t_{dn}}. Also, the reduction from weighted log-likelihood to the denoising loss should cite the standard DDPM variational bound explicitly, since the per-trajectory weights interact with the per-timestep loss in a non-obvious way.
  4. [§IV-C1 and Table II] The claim that SIDP 'outperforms existing methods in both SR and SPL' should be qualified. In the Home category, SIDP's SPL is lower than NavDP's (89.86 vs 91.44), even though the mean SPL is higher. The text should acknowledge this category-level exception.
  5. [General] The paper does not mention code or data release. Given that the training scenario and reward evaluation are custom, releasing code/data or providing detailed implementation details would substantially improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SIDP's target distribution is defined by an external environment reward (Eq. 6), and self-sampling is a proposal mechanism, not a relabeling of the policy's output as ground truth.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. In Eq. (6), the target p*(a|s_t) is defined as proportional to pi_theta(a|s_t) exp(r(s_t,a)/tau), following REPS; the reward r is an external environment quality signal (Table I), not the policy's own output. The importance weights in Eq. (7) are normalized rewards and therefore do not encode the policy's predictions as ground truth. The SIDP loss in Eq. (8) is a reward-weighted denoising objective over trajectories sampled from the current policy; using the policy as a proposal distribution is a standard importance-sampling device, not a definitional equivalence between input and output. The goal-agnostic exploration and reward-driven curriculum are self-referential only in the loose sense that they use current-policy rollouts to select training data; they do not define the evaluation metrics (SR/SPL on the InternVLA-N1 S1 benchmark), and the final evaluation is against external baselines (iPlanner, ViPlanner, NavDP). The paper does cite prior work by a co-author ([1] NavDP) as baseline, initialization, and benchmark, but the central comparison also includes independent baselines and the benchmark is an external task; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The numerical inconsistencies noted by the skeptic (abstract '~10 points' vs. Table II's 5.79 points; Table III SR 0.549 vs. Table II mSR 71.25%) are internal-consistency concerns, not circularity under the specified patterns. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; its claims rest on standard REPS/DDPM math and on the faithfulness of the simulation reward to real-world navigation.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward coefficients (λ_col, λ_step, λ_prog, λ_dock) = 10, 0.5, 5, 10
    Chosen by hand (Table I); no sensitivity analysis reported; these shape the self-imitation target.
  • Softmax temperature τ = 1.0
    Ablation (Fig. 4) shows 1.0 optimal; low/high degrade performance.
  • Curriculum thresholds τ_max and τ_range = Not reported
    Used to select feasible/informative scenarios; values never specified, making replication difficult.
  • Candidate count N and top-k = Not reported
    Sampling and truncation sizes in Algorithm 1 are not specified; performance likely depends on them.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Minimizing KL(p*||π_θ) maximizes expected reward under the softmax target (Eq. 6)
    Standard REPS/advantage-weighted regression result (Peters et al. 2010); used in §III-B2.
  • domain assumption ESDF-based reward in the interactive training environment faithfully measures navigation quality and collision safety
    Reward uses ESDF geodesic distance and collision checks (Table I, §IV-B1); if this diverges from real-world dynamics, self-imitation optimizes a proxy.
  • domain assumption The InternData-N1/InternVLA-N1 benchmark and NavDP initialization provide a valid, representative testbed
    All training and main evaluation rely on [1]'s data and scene distributions; the paper inherits any bias in those benchmarks.
  • ad hoc to paper Reward-guided self-imitation converges to a concentrated, high-quality trajectory distribution without mode collapse
    This is the paper's central mechanism (Fig. 1(b), §III-B3); no proof or evidence of diversity preservation is given beyond qualitative claims.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11110 in / 11091 out tokens · 114667 ms · 2026-08-03T06:16:51.695380+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Diffusion policies (DP) have demonstrated significant potential in visual navigation by capturing diverse multi-modal trajectory distributions. However, standard imitation learning (IL), which most DP methods rely on for training, often inherits sub-optimality and redundancy from expert demonstrations, thereby necessitating a computationally intensive "generate-then-filter" pipeline that relies on auxiliary selectors during inference. To address these challenges, we propose Self-Imitated Diffusion Policy (SIDP), a novel framework that learns improved planning by selectively imitating a set of trajectories sampled from itself. Specifically, SIDP introduces a reward-guided self-imitation mechanism that encourages the policy to consistently produce high-quality trajectories efficiently, rather than outputs of inconsistent quality, thereby reducing reliance on extensive sampling and post-filtering. During training, we employ a reward-driven curriculum learning paradigm to mitigate inefficient data utility, and goal-agnostic exploration for trajectory augmentation to improve planning robustness. Extensive evaluations on a comprehensive simulation benchmark show that SIDP significantly outperforms previous methods, with real-world experiments confirming its effectiveness across multiple robotic platforms. On Jetson Orin Nano, SIDP delivers a 2.5$\times$ faster inference than the baseline NavDP, i.e., 110ms VS 273ms, enabling efficient real-time deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22965 by Changxu Cheng, Junyi Hou, Qiyi Chen, Runhua Zhang, Tao Wang, Wuyue Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between imitation and self-imitation based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the Self-Imitated Diffusion Policy (SIDP). The framework generates candidate trajectories using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Learning curves of SIDP under different temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study of the reward-guided self-imitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study of goal-agnostic training under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. X-NavDP: Generalizing Navigation Diffusion Policy to Novel Behavior and Embodiments with Group Q-score Reweighted Matching

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Group Q-score reweighted matching plus self-bootstrapped trajectory perturbation lifts cross-embodiment diffusion navigation from 61% to 84% success in sim and ~10% to 65% in hard real cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    NavDP: Learning sim-to-real navigation diffusion policy with privileged information guidance

    W. Cai, J. Peng, Y . Yang, Y . Zhang, M. Wei, H. Wang, Y . Chen, T. Wang, and J. Pang, “NavDP: Learning sim-to-real navigation diffusion policy with privileged information guidance.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08712

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    NoMaD: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,

    A. Sridhar, D. Shah, C. Glossop, and S. Levine, “NoMaD: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 63–70. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10610665/

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis

    M. Janner, Y . Du, J. B. Tenenbaum, and S. Levine, “Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Mitigating Covariate Shift in Imitation Learning for Autonomous Vehicles Using Latent Space Generative World Models,

    A. Popov, A. Degirmenci, D. Wehr, S. Hegde, R. Oldja, A. Kamenev, B. Douillard, D. Nist ´er, U. Muller, R. Bhargava, S. Birchfield, and N. Smolyanskiy, “Mitigating Covariate Shift in Imitation Learning for Autonomous Vehicles Using Latent Space Generative World Models,” May 2025, arXiv:2409.16663 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    DAgger diffusion navigation: DAgger boosted diffusion policy for vision-language navigation,

    H. Shi, X. Deng, Z. Li, G. Chen, Y . Wang, and L. Nie, “DAgger diffusion navigation: DAgger boosted diffusion policy for vision-language navigation,” version: 1. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09444

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    NaviDiffusor: Cost-guided diffusion model for visual navigation

    Y . Zeng, H. Ren, S. Wang, J. Huang, and H. Cheng, “NaviDiffusor: Cost-guided diffusion model for visual navigation.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Navigation world models,

    A. Bar, G. Zhou, D. Tran, T. Darrell, and Y . LeCun, “Navigation world models,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 15 791–15 801

    2025

  8. [8]

    Generalized trajectory scoring for end-to-end multimodal planning

    Z. Li, W. Yao, Z. Wang, X. Sun, J. Chen, N. Chang, M. Shen, Z. Wu, S. Lan, and J. M. Alvarez, “Generalized trajectory scoring for end-to-end multimodal planning.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Self-Imitation Learning,

    J. Oh, Y . Guo, S. Singh, and H. Lee, “Self-Imitation Learning,” June 2018, arXiv:1806.05635 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.05635

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Diffusion policies as an expres- sive policy class for offline reinforcement learning,

    Z. Wang, J. J. Hunt, and M. Zhou, “Diffusion policies as an expres- sive policy class for offline reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06193, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Diffusion policy policy optimization,

    A. Z. Ren, J. Lidard, L. L. Ankile, A. Simeonov, P. Agrawal, A. Majum- dar, B. Burchfiel, H. Dai, and M. Simchowitz, “Diffusion policy policy optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00588, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Fine-tuning diffusion policies with backpropagation through diffusion timesteps,

    N. Yang, J. Gao, F. Gao, Y . Wu, and C. Yu, “Fine-tuning diffusion policies with backpropagation through diffusion timesteps,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10482

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    ORB-SLAM2: an open-source SLAM system for monocular, stereo and RGB-d cameras,

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tardos, “ORB-SLAM2: an open-source SLAM system for monocular, stereo and RGB-d cameras,” vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255–1262. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06475

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    ORB-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual-inertial and multi-map SLAM,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “ORB-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual-inertial and multi-map SLAM,” vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.11898

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    DD-PPO: Learning near-perfect PointGoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames

    E. Wijmans, A. Kadian, A. Morcos, S. Lee, I. Essa, D. Parikh, M. Savva, and D. Batra, “DD-PPO: Learning near-perfect PointGoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  17. [17]

    Auxiliary tasks speed up learning PointGoal navigation

    J. Ye, D. Batra, E. Wijmans, and A. Das, “Auxiliary tasks speed up learning PointGoal navigation.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    Auxiliary tasks for efficient learning of point- goal navigation,

    S. S. Desai and S. Lee, “Auxiliary tasks for efficient learning of point- goal navigation,” in2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, pp. 717–725. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9423043/

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments

    P. Anderson, Q. Wu, D. Teney, J. Bruce, M. Johnson, N. S ¨underhauf, I. Reid, S. Gould, and A. v. d. Hengel, “Vision-and-language navigation: Interpreting visually-grounded navigation instructions in real environments.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Speaker-follower models for vision-and-language navigation

    D. Fried, R. Hu, V . Cirik, A. Rohrbach, J. Andreas, L.-P. Morency, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, K. Saenko, D. Klein, and T. Darrell, “Speaker-follower models for vision-and-language navigation.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    ViNG: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,

    D. Shah, B. Eysenbach, G. Kahn, N. Rhinehart, and S. Levine, “ViNG: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 13 215–13 222. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.09812

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Waypoint models for instruction-guided navigation in continuous environments

    J. Krantz, A. Gokaslan, D. Batra, S. Lee, and O. Maksymets, “Waypoint models for instruction-guided navigation in continuous environments.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    InfoGAIL: Interpretable imitation learning from visual demonstrations

    Y . Li, J. Song, and S. Ermon, “InfoGAIL: Interpretable imitation learning from visual demonstrations.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Towards target-driven visual navigation in indoor scenes via generative imitation learning

    Q. Wu, X. Gong, K. Xu, D. Manocha, J. Dong, and J. Wang, “Towards target-driven visual navigation in indoor scenes via generative imitation learning.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” inProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, pp. 627–635, ISSN: 1938-7228. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v15/ro...

    1938

  26. [26]

    Visual hindsight self-imitation learning for interactive navigation,

    K. Kim, K. Shin, M. W. Lee, M. Lee, M. Lee, and B.-T. Zhang, “Visual hindsight self-imitation learning for interactive navigation,” vol. 12, pp. 83 796–83 809. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Is conditional generative modeling all you need for decision-making?

    A. Ajay, Y . Du, A. Gupta, J. Tenenbaum, T. Jaakkola, and P. Agrawal, “Is conditional generative modeling all you need for decision-making?” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    SkillDiffuser: Interpretable hierarchical planning via skill abstractions in diffusion-based task execution

    Z. Liang, Y . Mu, H. Ma, M. Tomizuka, M. Ding, and P. Luo, “SkillDiffuser: Interpretable hierarchical planning via skill abstractions in diffusion-based task execution.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Generative trajectory stitching through diffusion composition

    Y . Luo, U. A. Mishra, Y . Du, and D. Xu, “Generative trajectory stitching through diffusion composition.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05153

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models

    J. Carvalho, A. T. Le, M. Baierl, D. Koert, and J. Peters, “Motion planning diffusion: Learning and planning of robot motions with diffusion models.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    LDP: A local diffusion planner for efficient robot navigation and collision avoidance,

    W. Yu, J. Peng, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Y . Duan, J. Ji, and Y . Zhang, “LDP: A local diffusion planner for efficient robot navigation and collision avoidance,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5466–5472, ISSN: 2153-0866. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10802009/

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Prior does matter: Visual navigation via denoising diffusion bridge models

    H. Ren, Y . Zeng, Z. Bi, Z. Wan, J. Huang, and H. Cheng, “Prior does matter: Visual navigation via denoising diffusion bridge models.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    DiffusionDrive: Truncated diffusion model for end-to-end autonomous driving

    B. Liao, S. Chen, H. Yin, B. Jiang, C. Wang, S. Yan, X. Zhang, X. Li, Y . Zhang, Q. Zhang, and X. Wang, “DiffusionDrive: Truncated diffusion model for end-to-end autonomous driving.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15139

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Diffusion-ES: Gradient-free planning with diffusion for autonomous driving and zero-shot instruction following

    B. Yang, H. Su, N. Gkanatsios, T.-W. Ke, A. Jain, J. Schneider, and K. Fragkiadaki, “Diffusion-ES: Gradient-free planning with diffusion for autonomous driving and zero-shot instruction following.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06559

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Diffusion-based planning for autonomous driving with flexible guidance

    Y . Zheng, R. Liang, K. Zheng, J. Zheng, L. Mao, J. Li, W. Gu, R. Ai, S. E. Li, X. Zhan, and J. Liu, “Diffusion-based planning for autonomous driving with flexible guidance.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15564

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    CGD: Constraint-guided diffusion policies for UA V trajectory planning

    K. Kondo, A. Tagliabue, X. Cai, C. Tewari, O. Garcia, M. Espitia-Alvarez, and J. P. How, “CGD: Constraint-guided diffusion policies for UA V trajectory planning.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01758

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Relative entropy policy search,

    J. Peters, K. Mulling, and Y . Altun, “Relative entropy policy search,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 24, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1607–1612

    2010

  38. [38]

    A. B. Owen,Monte Carlo theory, methods and examples. Stanford Uni- versity, 2013, available online at https://statweb.stanford.edu/ owen/mc/

    2013

  39. [39]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    Banet: A blur-aware attention network for dynamic scene deblurring,

    F.-J. Tsai, Y .-T. Peng, C.-C. Tsai, Y .-Y . Lin, and C.-W. Lin, “Banet: A blur-aware attention network for dynamic scene deblurring,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 31, pp. 6789–6799, 2022

    2022