Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Two LLM agents learn an object-centric programmatic world model online from raw pixels and clear 20 of 25 ARC-AGI-3 games without per-game training.

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

2026-08-02 09:04 UTC pith:NU2ZXI2G

load-bearing objection A real new result—20/25 no-training wins on ARC-AGI-3—but the evidence doesn't yet show the world model is doing the work; needs code, variance, and a held-out generalization test before I'd trust it. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.01531 v2 pith:NU2ZXI2G submitted 2026-07-01 cs.AI cs.LG

OPINE-World: Programmatic World Modeling with Ontology-error-Prioritized Interactive Exploration for ARC-AGI-3

David Courtis , Wenhao Li , Scott Sanner This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.LG
keywords world modelsprogram synthesisobject-centric representationLLM agentsARC-AGI-3ontology errorexact replaycounterexample-guided synthesis
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.

This paper tries to establish that an agent can synthesize its own executable world model, written as code, directly from raw 64x64 frames and sparse reward, without being given the object vocabulary, goal, or action semantics. OPINE-World runs a pair of LLM-driven agents, one acting and one modeling, over a shared replay buffer. The model is admitted only when it reproduces every recorded transition exactly, and a planner searches that verified model. A Bayesian ontology-error score steers exploration toward objects the current model does not yet explain. On ARC-AGI-3, the paper reports 20 of 25 games solved with no per-game training, an action-efficiency score of 78.4 against the human baseline, and clear wins over a strong single-agent coding baseline, while program-synthesis and neural latent world models solve none.

Core claim

The central claim is that an online agent can recover an object ontology and a deterministic transition program from raw frames, gate acceptance on exact replay of every observed transition, and then plan through the admitted program to clear levels. The paper demonstrates this on the ARC-AGI-3 public set: OPINE-World clears 20 of 25 games without per-game training, reaches an action-efficiency score of 78.4 against the human reference, and solves six games that defeat a strong single-agent coding baseline, doing so in about a quarter of the actions that baseline spends before failing. The model is factored by object type, so a wrong grouping is repaired one type at a time, and the planner i

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the ontology error, a Bayesian measure defined as the noisy-OR of two normalized entropies: type uncertainty (how unsure the system is about an object's mechanical type) and row uncertainty (how mixed the effect distribution is for a given type-action-context row). It steers exploration toward objects and contexts the current ontology fails to explain, while the exact-replay verifier, which accepts a candidate only when it reproduces every recorded transition attribute-for-attribute and rejects any program whose two runs differ, decides correctness. Around these two sit the two-agent loop: a goal-directed actor probes the environment, a synthesizer rewrites the prog

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on Assumption 1: each game must admit a typed object representation in which the transition is a deterministic function of the visible state and action, so that a program verified by exact replay on observed transitions also generalizes to the unseen transitions the planner needs.

What would settle it

Construct a game with a hidden counter that changes an object's behavior only after an unobservable condition, and run the system on it: if exact replay admits no consistent program or the admitted program fails on the first new layout, the central claim is refuted. A simpler check is to take a solved game, hold out the last level's layout type, and see whether the replay-verified program predicts the first unseen transition; a mismatch would show exact replay does not imply the generalization the planner relies on.

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

If this is right

  • Program-synthesized world models can apply to pixel-rendered environments without a pre-given object vocabulary.
  • An agent can learn a game's mechanics online from raw frames and sparse reward, clearing most games at or below the human action count.
  • Separating acting from modeling and admitting models only by exact replay avoids committing to an early wrong ontology.
  • The planner is gated on having cleared at least one level and validates each planned step against the live environment.
  • The approach clears games that defeat a strong single-agent coding baseline, spending roughly a quarter of the baseline's actions on those hard games.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The ontology-error signal could be reused as an intrinsic exploration bonus in other partially specified environments even where exact replay is unavailable.
  • The exact-replay acceptance criterion suggests a broader design principle: trust a program for planning only when it is closed under all observed transitions.
  • A natural testable extension would relax Assumption 1 to probabilistic acceptance for stochastic or partially observed games, which the paper explicitly scopes out.
  • The contrast with single-program search and neural latent models suggests that per-type factoring plus per-type repair, rather than raw model capacity, drives the sample efficiency.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces OPINE-World, an LLM-based agent that learns an object-centric programmatic world model online for ARC-AGI-3. It separates acting from modeling across two LLM agents, maintains a replay buffer, synthesizes a Python transition function using counterexample-guided synthesis, admits a model only when it exactly replays all observed transitions, and plans with a bounded forward search that is validated step-by-step against the live environment. A Bayesian 'ontology error' diagnostic steers exploration. The main empirical claim is that OPINE-World solves 20 of 25 ARC-AGI-3 games without per-game training, surpassing baseline1 (14/25) and reaching an action-efficiency score of 78.4 against a human baseline. The paper also reports that WorldCoder and neural latent world models clear no games, and it includes per-level action tables and integrity checks showing that the agents did not read game source code.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant: it would demonstrate that an LLM-driven agent can recover an object ontology and deterministic transition rules from raw 64×64 frames, then use the synthesized model for planning, with better coverage and efficiency than a strong single-agent coding baseline. The system design has several strengths that deserve explicit credit: exact-replay verification is a crisp, programmatic consistency check; per-step live validation gives a strong runtime loop; the paper includes detailed per-level tables (Tables 3 and 4); and the limitations section is unusually candid, including the single-run-per-game concern and the observable-Markov scope. The contribution would be particularly valuable if the synthesized models were shown to generalize beyond the exact observed transitions, because that is what distinguishes programmatic world modeling from memorizing a replay buffer.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, §3.5, Appendix A.1, A.3] The acceptance test ϕ_T only checks exact replay on the recorded buffer. Appendix A.1 explicitly permits the synthesis agent to choose 'plain functions, classes, or lookup tables,' and A.3 verifies only replay equality and deterministic re-runs. A lookup table keyed on (state, action) passes ϕ_T but cannot predict unseen states from new levels. The paper provides no held-out next-state accuracy, no ablation separating planner-driven moves from goal-directed exploration, and no quantitative generalization check; the critic described in §3.2 is an LLM prompt, not a measurement. Consequently, the aggregate scores in Table 1 do not establish that the learned model itself generalizes as required for the system's core mechanism. This is load-bearing for the central claim and needs a concrete test, e.g., measuring next-state prediction accuracy on held-out levels, or reporting the fraction of w
  2. [§4, Table 3, Limitation (iv)] Each game is played once, and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 6(iv) that the headline counts could shift under resampling. Given that the agent is driven by stochastic LLM proposals, a single run per game provides no variance estimate, and a few games' outcomes could change the 20/25 count and the 78.4 score. The manuscript should report multiple runs per game (or at least a subset) and confidence intervals or a repeated-run table for the main result. This is not a fatal flaw by itself, but it is necessary to support the headline comparison against baseline1.
  3. [§4, Baselines] The main comparison is with baseline1, but the two systems use different base language models: OPINE-World runs Claude Opus 4.8 and baseline1 runs GPT-5.5 at high reasoning effort. The paper acknowledges this in §4, but the conclusion 'OPINE-World surpasses baseline1' is therefore not a controlled comparison of the proposed architecture versus the baseline architecture. A same-model study, or at least a swap of the underlying LLM for a subset of games, is needed to attribute the margin to the multi-agent loop rather than to the base model. This is a load-bearing comparison issue for the paper's headline claim.
  4. [Appendix C, Artifact availability] The integrity audit in Appendix C is a useful safeguard, but the paper does not release the synthesized game_engine.py programs, the interaction transcripts, or the replay buffers used for the reported runs. Without these artifacts, the exact-replay check and the per-level counts cannot be independently verified. Providing at least the synthesized transition programs for a sample of the 20 won games, and ideally the transcripts, would substantially strengthen the empirical case. This is a verifiability concern rather than a correctness error, but it matters for a result that depends on LLM-generated artifacts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4 and Appendix E] The caption and table header refer to 'D3M' while the paper consistently uses 'OPINE-World' elsewhere. This looks like a leftover internal name and should be fixed for consistency.
  2. [Remark 1, Appendix H.2] There is a typesetting corruption in 'extract_objects' appearing as 'ex tr ac t_ ob je ct s'. Please correct.
  3. [Throughout] Several equations have spacing issues (e.g., 's 0', 'bT(s ℓ, aℓ)', 'η i t') and some subscript/superscript formatting is inconsistent. A careful proofread of the formal sections would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix F–U] The formalization is very long and partly redundant with the main text. Consider compressing the object-lifted MDP details and moving some of the Dirichlet construction to a more concise presentation, since the main text already summarizes the key definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: headline scores are measured live against ARC-AGI-3; exact-replay admission is a consistency filter, not the predicted outcome.

full rationale

OPINE-World's headline claims (20/25 games won; action-efficiency 78.4) are not derived from the fitted model by construction; they are live-environment outcomes. The exact-replay admission test (Section 3.3, ϕ_T) only requires the synthesized program to reproduce observed transitions; the paper does not present replay accuracy as the benchmark result, and it does not claim that exact replay alone establishes generalization to unseen levels. Planning is explicitly gated on live validation (Section 3.5): each planned step is compared against the real environment, and a mismatch becomes a counterexample, returns control to the goal-directed agent, and reopens synthesis. The ontology-error diagnostic (Section 3.4) is computed from the same replay buffer used for synthesis, but the paper repeatedly subordinates it to the exact-replay verifier — Remark 2 states 'correctness of the world model is decided not by η but by the full-state replay verifier ϕ_T' — so it functions as an exploration heuristic, not as evidence for the model's generalization or as a fitted predictor of the benchmark. No load-bearing self-citation appears: cited prior systems (WorldCoder, PoE-World, baseline1, etc.) are external, and baseline1 is compared through its published leaderboard result. The paper's own admissions — lookup tables are allowed and pass the replay test (Appendix A.1), no held-out transition accuracy is measured, per-component ablations are deferred, and each game is run once (Section 6.iv) — identify real validity and generalization risks, but they are not cases where a claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by definition. The central comparison therefore has independent empirical content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or world entities are postulated. Object types, effect signatures, and ontology error are internal representations and metrics rather than entities with independent falsifiable handles.

free parameters (5)
  • Dirichlet pseudo-count α0 = not reported
    Prior strength in the effect-signature Dirichlet rows (Appendix L); controls ontology-error concentration but its value is not given.
  • Row identification thresholds n_min, m_min = not reported
    Minimum counts and modal fraction for calling a row identified (Appendix M); used in crystallization, though the operational trigger is looser.
  • Type-uncertainty threshold ε_type = not reported
    Used in the idealized crystallization condition (Appendix P); the actual implementation uses successful level completion and 'confident non-decorative aliases', also unspecified.
  • Synthesis cadence hyperparameters = not reported
    Deferral window, stall-guard rounds, critic cadence, and compaction token threshold (A.4/A.6) affect exploration and repair behavior and are not quantified.
  • Planner search bound = not reported
    Bounded forward search depth/width limits planning; the bound is not specified (Section 3.5, Limitation iii).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: Observable-Markov determinism — under some object representation, T is deterministic, and conditioned on a correct type partition and local context each action has one outcome.
    Section 2, Assumption 1. Makes exact-replay acceptance well-posed; limits scope to deterministic, observable-Markov games.
  • domain assumption The synthesized extractor α_LLM and two-pass pairing heuristic µ correctly recover persistent objects from raw frames.
    Section H.2/H.3 and Limitation (ii). If extraction or pairing is wrong, effect signatures, type posterior, and ontology error are computed over wrong records.
  • domain assumption A program that exactly replays all observed transitions, under Assumption 1, is a reliable basis for planning in unseen states.
    Section 3.3 gates planning on exact replay plus live-step validation; no held-out generalization test is reported.
  • domain assumption The LLM (Claude Opus 4.8) can propose correct type partitions, extractors, transition rules, and goal predicates from few examples.
    Core of the method (Section 3.2); no formal guarantee is given and prompts are not released.
  • domain assumption ARC-AGI-3 reward is a sparse level-advance signal, and the human action-efficiency baseline is a fair scalar for scoring.
    Section 2/4; the headline scores are ratios against this baseline, and the human protocol is not detailed.
  • standard math Dirichlet-multinomial conjugacy and normalized entropy formulas as stated.
    Used for posterior row diagnostics (Appendix L/O); standard background, no proof included.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23824 in / 17087 out tokens · 164682 ms · 2026-08-02T09:04:08.622595+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Learning how an environment behaves from interaction is central to building agents that adapt to unfamiliar tasks. World models learned with deep networks are flexible but data-hungry and transfer poorly beyond their training distribution. Program-synthesized world models, written as source code by LLMs and refined through counterexample-guided inductive synthesis (CEGIS), are instead data-efficient and reusable, yet they have been demonstrated mainly on structured-state worlds with a given object vocabulary, and a single program search does not scale to pixel-rendered environments whose object structure must be hypothesized flexibly. We introduce OPINE-World, an LLM agent that learns an object-centric programmatic world model online from interaction. OPINE-World couples two cooperating agents in a loop of hypothesis and test, one acting in the environment and one synthesizing the model in code with replay verification and model-based planning, and it steers exploration with a Bayesian measure of object-type adequacy we call ontology error. We evaluate OPINE-World on ARC-AGI-3, a benchmark for skill-acquisition efficiency in which the object vocabulary, the goal, and the action semantics are withheld. OPINE-World solves 20 of 25 games without per-game training and reaches an action-efficiency score of 78.4 against the human baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01531 by David Courtis, Scott Sanner, Wenhao Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The OPINE-World loop. The goal-directed agent acts in the live game and records each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Effect signatures. For one transition st → st+1 (shown as O → O′ ), each paired object’s changed-attribute set ∆i t is sent by the quotient map ρ to a single categorical signature e i t ∈ E. The alphabet E is grown from the signatures observed, such as no change, x, x,y, pixels, gone, and born. Exact deltas such as x : 12 → 15 are discarded. 3.4 Object-type diagnostics and ontology error Alongside the prog… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Row concentration by context refinement. Pooling every local context of the player [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Aggregate ontology error ηt over one run (ar25), combining type and row uncertainty through the noisy-OR η i t = 1 − (1 − U type i )(1 − U row j i t ). After initialization ηt falls as types and rows resolve; it rises transiently while a wrong model is repaired by synthesis, then falls steadily as the committed model stabilizes. Level completions are marked L0, . . . , L5. 3.5 Planning over the verified mo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-game ARC-AGI-3 action-efficiency score (0–100) for OPINE-World and baseline1, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-level action counts on three games baseline1 cannot clear. baseline1 (orange) spends [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Actions to clear each game that both OPINE-World and baseline1 win, with the human [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Action efficiency relative to the human reference on the 20 games OPINE-World wins, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Games won out of 25 by each system. WorldCoder and the neural latent world models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The six games baseline1 fails and OPINE-World wins. baseline1 (hatched) exhausts its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Per-game actions, baseline1 against OPINE-World, on log axes with the parity diagonal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Levels cleared as a fraction of each game’s total, per system. OPINE-World clears the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An ARC-3 state decomposed into object records. The grid naturally contains sprites, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Tycho: Active Abstraction with Programmatic World Models for ARC-AGI-3

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Selective programmatic world modeling (actor-requested builder) yields 100 RHAE on all 183 public ARC-AGI-3 levels, while automatic repair is more transition-exact but weaker at play.

  2. Do Coding Agents Need Executable World Models, Simplification, and Verification to Solve ARC-AGI-3?

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On the 25 public ARC-AGI-3 games, all agent designs improved with stronger models and more reasoning effort; the replay-verified executable variant ranked first in every setting but used roughly three times the resour...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Tang, Hao and Key, Darren and Ellis, Kevin , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  2. [2]

    2025 , eprint =

    Ellis, Kevin and others , title =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  3. [3]

    TMLR , year =

    Ahmed, Zaid and others , title =. TMLR , year =

  4. [4]

    Fox, Alexis and Wang, Jason and Rosu, Paul and Dhingra, Bhuwan , title =

  5. [5]

    , title =

    Diuk, Carlos and Cohen, Andre and Littman, Michael L. , title =. ICML , year =

  6. [6]

    and Nilsson, Nils J

    Fikes, Richard E. and Nilsson, Nils J. , title =. Artificial Intelligence , volume =

  7. [7]

    Mathematics of Operations Research , volume =

    Russo, Daniel and Van Roy, Benjamin , title =. Mathematics of Operations Research , volume =

  8. [8]

    and Tennenholtz, Moshe , title =

    Brafman, Ronen I. and Tennenholtz, Moshe , title =. JMLR , volume =

  9. [9]

    Chow, Yuan Shih and Robbins, Herbert and Siegmund, David , title =

  10. [10]

    and Herskovits, Edward , title =

    Cooper, Gregory F. and Herskovits, Edward , title =. Machine Learning , volume =

  11. [11]

    , title =

    Heckerman, David and Geiger, Dan and Chickering, David M. , title =. Machine Learning , volume =

  12. [12]

    Haughton, Dominique M. A. , title =. Annals of Statistics , volume =

  13. [13]

    PLDI , year =

    Ellis, Kevin and others , title =. PLDI , year =

  14. [14]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Shinn, Noah and others , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  15. [15]

    ICLR , year =

    Hafner, Danijar and others , title =. ICLR , year =

  16. [16]

    Nature , volume =

    Schrittwieser, Julian and others , title =. Nature , volume =

  17. [17]

    IJCAI , year =

    Lamanna, Leonardo and others , title =. IJCAI , year =

  18. [18]

    2025 , eprint =

    Hu, Mengkang and others , title =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  19. [19]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B , volume =

    Stephens, Matthew , title =. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B , volume =

  20. [20]

    Celeux, Gilles , title =

  21. [21]

    Bayesian Analysis , volume =

    Wade, Sara and Ghahramani, Zoubin , title =. Bayesian Analysis , volume =

  22. [22]

    Comparing Clusterings: An Information Based Distance , journal =

    Meil. Comparing Clusterings: An Information Based Distance , journal =

  23. [23]

    and Griffiths, Thomas L

    Kemp, Charles and Tenenbaum, Joshua B. and Griffiths, Thomas L. and Yamada, Takeshi and Ueda, Naonori , title =. AAAI , year =

  24. [24]

    and Beal, Matthew J

    Teh, Yee Whye and Jordan, Michael I. and Beal, Matthew J. and Blei, David M. , title =. JASA , volume =

  25. [25]

    IJCAI , year =

    Lipovetzky, Nir and Ramirez, Miquel and Geffner, Hector , title =. IJCAI , year =

  26. [26]

    and Pollitt, Andr\'e and Jonsson, Anders and Seipp, Jendrik , title =

    Corr\^ea, Augusto B. and Pollitt, Andr\'e and Jonsson, Anders and Seipp, Jendrik , title =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  27. [27]

    ICML , year =

    Zhou, Andy and others , title =. ICML , year =

  28. [28]

    2025 , eprint =

    Levy, Guillaume and others , title =. 2025 , eprint =

    2025

  29. [29]

    CoRL , year =

    Curtis, Aidan and others , title =. CoRL , year =

  30. [30]

    2026 , note =

    Learning. 2026 , note =

    2026

  31. [31]

    2023 , eprint =

    Wong, Lionel and others , title =. 2023 , eprint =

    2023

  32. [32]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Piriyakulkij, Wasu Top and Langenfeld, Cassidy and Le, Tuan Anh and Ellis, Kevin , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  33. [33]

    Pearl, Judea , title =

  34. [34]

    2026 , howpublished =

    Frontier-Model Trace Analysis on. 2026 , howpublished =

    2026

  35. [35]

    , title =

    Sutton, Richard S. , title =. ACM SIGART Bulletin , volume =

  36. [36]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Ha, David and Schmidhuber, J\"urgen , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  37. [37]

    Nature , volume =

    Hafner, Danijar and Pasukonis, Jurgis and Ba, Jimmy and Lillicrap, Timothy , title =. Nature , volume =

  38. [38]

    and Saraswat, Vijay A

    Solar-Lezama, Armando and Tancau, Liviu and Bod\'ik, Rastislav and Seshia, Sanjit A. and Saraswat, Vijay A. , title =. ASPLOS , year =

  39. [39]

    On the Measure of Intelligence , journal =

    Chollet, Fran. On the Measure of Intelligence , journal =

  40. [40]

    Kaiser, Lukasz and Babaeizadeh, Mohammad and Milos, Piotr and Osinski, Blazej and Campbell, Roy H. and Czechowski, Konrad and Erhan, Dumitru and Finn, Chelsea and Kozakowski, Piotr and Levine, Sergey and Mohiuddin, Afroz and Sepassi, Ryan and Tucker, George and Michalewski, Henryk , title =. ICLR , year =

  41. [41]

    and Tsitsiklis, John N

    Konda, Vijay R. and Tsitsiklis, John N. , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  42. [42]

    ICLR , year =

    Horgan, Dan and Quan, John and Budden, David and Barth-Maron, Gabriel and Hessel, Matteo and van Hasselt, Hado and Silver, David , title =. ICLR , year =

  43. [43]

    ICLR , year =

    Hong, Sirui and Zhuge, Mingchen and Chen, Jiaqi and Zheng, Xiawu and Cheng, Yuheng and Zhang, Ceyao and Wang, Jinlin and Wang, Zili and Yau, Steven Ka Shing and Lin, Zijuan and Zhou, Liyang and Ran, Chenyu and Xiao, Lingfeng and Wu, Chenglin and Schmidhuber, J\"urgen , title =. ICLR , year =

  44. [44]

    and Burger, Doug and Wang, Chi , title =

    Wu, Qingyun and Bansal, Gagan and Zhang, Jieyu and Wu, Yiran and Li, Beibin and Zhu, Erkang and Jiang, Li and Zhang, Xiaoyun and Zhang, Shaokun and Liu, Jiale and Awadallah, Ahmed Hassan and White, Ryen W. and Burger, Doug and Wang, Chi , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    ACL , year =

    Qian, Chen and Liu, Wei and Liu, Hongzhang and Chen, Nuo and Dang, Yufan and Li, Jiahao and Yang, Cheng and Chen, Weize and Su, Yusheng and Cong, Xin and Xu, Juyuan and Li, Dahai and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , title =. ACL , year =

  46. [46]

    JAIR , volume =

    Guestrin, Carlos and Koller, Daphne and Parr, Ronald and Venkataraman, Shobha , title =. JAIR , volume =

  47. [47]

    Relational Reinforcement Learning , journal =

    D. Relational Reinforcement Learning , journal =

  48. [48]

    and Hamrick, Jessica B

    Battaglia, Peter W. and Hamrick, Jessica B. and Bapst, Victor and Sanchez-Gonzalez, Alvaro and Zambaldi, Vinicius and Malinowski, Mateusz and Tacchetti, Andrea and Raposo, David and Santoro, Adam and others , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01261 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Schema Networks: Zero-shot Transfer with a Generative Causal Model of Intuitive Physics , booktitle =

    Kansky, Ken and Silver, Tom and M. Schema Networks: Zero-shot Transfer with a Generative Causal Model of Intuitive Physics , booktitle =

  50. [50]

    ICLR , year =

    Kipf, Thomas and van der Pol, Elise and Welling, Max , title =. ICLR , year =

  51. [51]

    and Chang, Michael and Janner, Michael and Finn, Chelsea and Wu, Jiajun and Tenenbaum, Joshua and Levine, Sergey , title =

    Veerapaneni, Rishi and Co-Reyes, John D. and Chang, Michael and Janner, Michael and Finn, Chelsea and Wu, Jiajun and Tenenbaum, Joshua and Levine, Sergey , title =. CoRL , year =

  52. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

    Chen, Mark and Tworek, Jerry and Jun, Heewoo and Yuan, Qiming and Pinto, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira and others , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year =

    Austin, Jacob and Odena, Augustus and Nye, Maxwell and Bosma, Maarten and Michalewski, Henryk and Dohan, David and Jiang, Ellen and Cai, Carrie and Terry, Michael and Le, Quoc and Sutton, Charles , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Science , volume =

    Li, Yujia and Choi, David and Chung, Junyoung and Kushman, Nate and Schrittwieser, Julian and others , title =. Science , volume =

  55. [55]

    Pawan and Dupont, Emilien and Ruiz, Francisco J

    Romera-Paredes, Bernardino and Barekatain, Mohammadamin and Novikov, Alexander and Balog, Matej and Kumar, M. Pawan and Dupont, Emilien and Ruiz, Francisco J. R. and Ellenberg, Jordan S. and Wang, Pengming and Fawzi, Omar and Kohli, Pushmeet and Fawzi, Alhussein , title =. Nature , volume =

  56. [56]

    , title =

    Wang, Ruocheng and Zelikman, Eric and Poesia, Gabriel and Pu, Yewen and Haber, Nick and Goodman, Noah D. , title =. ICLR , year =

  57. [57]

    , title =

    Kambhampati, Subbarao and Valmeekam, Karthik and Guan, Lin and Verma, Mudit and Stechly, Kaya and Bhambri, Siddhant and Saldyt, Lucas Paul and Murthy, Anil B. , title =. ICML , year =

  58. [58]

    and Tiwari, Ashish , title =

    Jha, Susmit and Gulwani, Sumit and Seshia, Sanjit A. and Tiwari, Ashish , title =. ICSE , year =

  59. [59]

    Syntax-Guided Synthesis , booktitle =

    Alur, Rajeev and Bod. Syntax-Guided Synthesis , booktitle =

  60. [60]

    CAV , year =

    Clarke, Edmund and Grumberg, Orna and Jha, Somesh and Lu, Yuan and Veith, Helmut , title =. CAV , year =

  61. [61]

    , title =

    Mitchell, Tom M. , title =. Artificial Intelligence , volume =

  62. [62]

    , title =

    Blumer, Anselm and Ehrenfeucht, Andrzej and Haussler, David and Warmuth, Manfred K. , title =. Information Processing Letters , volume =

  63. [63]

    Journal of Logic Programming , volume =

    Muggleton, Stephen and De Raedt, Luc , title =. Journal of Logic Programming , volume =

  64. [64]

    and Kemp, Charles and Griffiths, Thomas L

    Tenenbaum, Joshua B. and Kemp, Charles and Griffiths, Thomas L. and Goodman, Noah D. , title =. Science , volume =

  65. [65]

    and Schulz, Laura E

    Gopnik, Alison and Glymour, Clark and Sobel, David M. and Schulz, Laura E. and Kushnir, Tamar and Danks, David , title =. Psychological Review , volume =

  66. [66]

    , title =

    Lindley, Dennis V. , title =. Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume =

  67. [67]

    Statistical Science , volume =

    Chaloner, Kathryn and Verdinelli, Isabella , title =. Statistical Science , volume =

  68. [68]

    NeurIPS , year =

    Houthooft, Rein and Chen, Xi and Duan, Yan and Schulman, John and De Turck, Filip and Abbeel, Pieter , title =. NeurIPS , year =

  69. [69]

    and Darrell, Trevor , title =

    Pathak, Deepak and Agrawal, Pulkit and Efros, Alexei A. and Darrell, Trevor , title =. ICML , year =

  70. [70]

    Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation (1990--2010) , journal =

    Schmidhuber, J. Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation (1990--2010) , journal =

    1990

  71. [71]

    Frontiers in Neurorobotics , volume =

    Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves and Kaplan, Frederic , title =. Frontiers in Neurorobotics , volume =

  72. [72]

    ICLR , year =

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , title =. ICLR , year =

  73. [73]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 , year =

    Wang, Guanzhi and Xie, Yuqi and Jiang, Yunfan and Mandlekar, Ajay and Xiao, Chaowei and Zhu, Yuke and Fan, Linxi and Anandkumar, Anima , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    CoRL , year =

    Ahn, Michael and Brohan, Anthony and Brown, Noah and Chebotar, Yevgen and Cortes, Omar and others , title =. CoRL , year =

  75. [75]

    and Prett, David M

    Garcia, Carlos E. and Prett, David M. and Morari, Manfred , title =. Automatica , volume =

  76. [76]

    and Rawlings, James B

    Mayne, David Q. and Rawlings, James B. and Rao, Christopher V. and Scokaert, Pierre O. M. , title =. Automatica , volume =

  77. [77]

    and Boots, Byron and Theodorou, Evangelos A

    Williams, Grady and Wagener, Nolan and Goldfain, Brian and Drews, Paul and Rehg, James M. and Boots, Byron and Theodorou, Evangelos A. , title =. ICRA , year =

  78. [78]

    Width and Serialization of Classical Planning Problems , booktitle =

    Lipovetzky, Nir and Geffner, H. Width and Serialization of Classical Planning Problems , booktitle =

  79. [79]

    Pednault, Edwin P. D. , title =. KR , year =

  80. [80]

    McDermott, Drew and Ghallab, Malik and Howe, Adele and Knoblock, Craig and Ram, Ashwin and Veloso, Manuela and Weld, Daniel and Wilkins, David , title =

Showing first 80 references.