Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

From Text to Trajectory: Exploring Complex Constraint Representation and Decomposition in Safe Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces TTCT, which turns natural-language safety constraints into per-step costs for reinforcement learning, and reports that policies trained on its predicted costs violate constraints less often than policies trained on…

desk verdict The alignment part is a real step forward, but the cost assignment component is trained without any violation label, so the dense-cost advantage may be generic rather than semantic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08920 v3 pith:3ZYOFHPQ submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CL cs.AI

Pusen Dong , Tianchen Zhu , Yue Qiu , Haoyi Zhou , Jianxin Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords safereinforcementlearningnaturallanguageconstraintstrajectory-leveltextualcontrastivetext-trajectoryalignmentcostassignmentzero-shottransferconstrainedMarkovdecisionprocess
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

Safe reinforcement learning usually requires a human expert to encode each safety constraint as a cost function, which is brittle and task-specific. This paper argues that constraints can be given as complex, trajectory-level natural-language sentences—such as 'after stepping through water, your shoes can't touch lava'—and that the same text can serve both as the constraint and as the training signal that replaces the cost function. The proposed TTCT model embeds trajectories and constraint texts into a shared space, predicts a violation when their cosine similarity crosses a threshold, and decomposes the episodic violation cost into per-state-action costs to give the agent dense feedback. In experiments on a 2D grid task and a 3D robot-navigation task, agents trained with TTCT's predicted costs achieve lower average episodic cost (up to 4.0x lower violation rates) than agents trained with ground-truth cost functions, with comparable rewards, and the model transfers zero-shot to a constraint-shift environment.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the text–trajectory alignment carried by TTCT: a causal Transformer encodes the state-action sequence into embeddings $H_1,\dots,H_T$, a language model encodes the textual constraint into $L$, and scaled cosine similarity $\operatorname{sim}(\tau,y)=e^\alpha H_T^{\top}L/(\|H_T\|\|L\|)$ measures whether a trajectory $\tau$ violates constraint $y$. Three losses train it end-to-end: a multimodal contrastive (MC) KL loss that pulls matching trajectory-text pairs together and pushes non-matching pairs apart, a within-trajectory (WT) loss that makes the final time step's embedding maximally similar to the text while earlier steps are dissimilar, and a cost-assignment (CA) loss that forces the sum of per-step predicted costs $\sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\hat{c}(s_t,a_t,y,\tau_t)$ to match the predicted episodic cost $\hat{C}(y)$. At deployment, a violation is flagged when $\operatorname{sim}(\tau,y)\ge\beta$, where $\beta$ is the best ROC threshold, and non-violation steps receive the decomposed cost. This turns sparse, end-of-episode safety feedback into dense per-action cost while keeping the manual cost function out of the loop.

What would settle it

Train TTCT only on the paper's template-generated constraints, then evaluate it on a held-out set of genuinely free-form natural-language constraints written by humans (not templates) with manually verified trajectory labels; if violation-prediction AUC drops well below 0.98 or the trained policy's average episodic cost is no longer lower than the ground-truth-cost policy's, the replacement claim and zero-shot generalization are refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a single learned model, TTCT, can replace the manually designed cost function for safe RL with natural-language constraints. TTCT aligns a causal-transformer trajectory encoder with a pretrained language model through multimodal contrastive learning and a within-trajectory loss, so that the final trajectory embedding sits close to the text embedding of a constraint the trajectory violates; a violation is declared when the scaled cosine similarity exceeds a threshold chosen from the ROC curve. A cost-assignment head then uses attention scores between each state-action embedding and the text embedding to spread the episodic violation cost across time steps, giving non-violation actions informative cost signals. The paper reports violation-prediction accuracy and AUC of 0.98, and shows that across PPO-Lagrangian, CPPO_PID, and FOCOPS, policies using TTCT's predicted cost reach lower average episodic cost than the same algorithms with ground-truth cost while keeping reward comparable, and that the trained TTCT transfers without fine-tuning to a new environment with different hazards.

Load-bearing premise

TTCT is trained on labels produced by hand-written violation-checking functions applied to template-generated constraint sentences, so its ability to replace manual cost design rests on those checkers being available and accurate for every constraint and on the templates being representative of real constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single TTCT trained once can provide cost signals for any textual constraint in the same environment, so users only need to write the constraint in natural language instead of designing a cost function for each one.
  • Because the episodic cost is decomposed into per-state-action costs, agents learn which early behaviors escalate risk even though the underlying constraint is only violated at the final step.
  • Across three safe-RL algorithms (PPO-Lagrangian, CPPO_PID, FOCOPS), replacing the ground-truth cost with TTCT's predicted cost yields lower average episodic cost and comparable reward, so the benefit is not tied to one policy optimizer.
  • Zero-shot transfer holds for constraint-shift: a TTCT trained in Hazard-World-Grid, applied to LavaWall without fine-tuning, keeps a violation rate comparable to a policy trained with the ground-truth cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same trajectory-text alignment could serve as an offline safety auditor: because it labels full trajectories with AUC 0.98, it could flag dangerous rollouts in a dataset without ever running a new policy.
  • A stronger test of the zero-shot claim would evaluate TTCT on genuinely free-form constraints written by humans rather than the template-generated sentences used in training; the current test split comes from the same template distribution, so out-of-template generalization remains unmeasured.
  • The attention-based cost assignment suggests a built-in per-step risk attribution; comparing those attribution scores against human judgments or ground-truth risk gradients would be a natural next experiment.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TTCT, a framework that uses natural language constraints as both the task specification and the training signal for safe reinforcement learning. It has two main components: a text-trajectory alignment component trained with contrastive and within-trajectory losses to predict whether a trajectory violates a given textual constraint, and a cost assignment component that decomposes an episodic cost prediction into per-step costs. TTCT is trained on offline data with template-generated constraints and then used as the cost provider in several safe RL algorithms. Experiments on Hazard-World-Grid and SafetyGoal show that policies trained with TTCT's predicted costs achieve lower violation rates than those trained with ground-truth cost functions, and a zero-shot transfer experiment to LavaWall is reported.

Significance. If validated, the work addresses a practical limitation of safe RL: the need for manually designed cost functions. The dual use of text as both constraint and supervision is a clean idea, and the paper includes a reasonable set of experiments covering multiple algorithms, ablations, and a zero-shot transfer. The reported AUC of 0.98 for violation prediction is strong. However, the central claim that the cost assignment component provides meaningful dense costs is undermined by the absence of a supervised training signal for the episodic cost prediction, and the lack of an empirical comparison with the closest prior methods [14, 27] leaves the contribution's advantage unquantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (11)] The cost assignment loss L_CA is a consistency loss between the predicted episodic cost \hat{C}(y) and the sum of per-step costs. Since \hat{C}(y) is computed from the text embedding only and is never trained against the true episodic cost (0 or 1) that is available in the offline dataset, the global minimum includes the trivial solution \hat{C}(y)=0 and all \hat{c}_t=0. The dense costs used in Eq. (13) are therefore not anchored to violation status. Please add a supervised loss for \hat{C}(y) against the true episodic cost and report the resulting cost calibration, or otherwise provide quantitative evidence that the per-step costs correlate with actual violation risk.
  2. [Section 6 (Baselines, Table 5)] The experimental section does not compare TTCT with the closest prior natural-language cost methods, namely [14] (Safe RL with natural language constraints) and [27] (Safe RL with free-form natural language constraints and pre-trained language models). Because the paper's central claim is that TTCT outperforms the standard cost function and prior approaches, a direct comparison on the same tasks is necessary to support this claim.
  3. [Appendix A.1, Conclusion] All constraints are generated from predefined templates (Appendix A.1) and require hand-written violation checkers. The paper claims to handle 'total free-form and complex textual constraints' (Conclusion), but the experiments do not test with human-written, unseen constraint phrasings. The zero-shot transfer to LavaWall also uses constraints from the same template distribution. Please clarify the scope and include an evaluation with more diverse constraints to support the generalization claim.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (13), Appendix B.1] Equation (13) uses a single threshold beta determined from the ROC curve of the full-trajectory violation prediction (Appendix B.1). During policy training, the same threshold is applied to prefixes of trajectories at every time step, even though the alignment component was trained on complete trajectories up to the violation time. The appropriateness of this threshold for prefixes is not analyzed. Please provide an analysis or ablation of the threshold choice for intermediate time steps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text states that the final embedding H_T is used as the representation for the entire trajectory, but the cost assignment component in Section 4.2 also uses all intermediate embeddings H_t; this distinction could be clarified.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'The blue bars are our proposed cost prediction (CP) mode performance and the orange bars are the ground-truth cost (GC) mode performance,' but the explanation of the black dashed line is given only in the text; adding it to the caption would aid readability.
  3. [Table 5] The header 'PPO' appears without a corresponding 'GC'/'CP' split, and the table's shaded cells are not visible in the text; please ensure the table is self-contained.
  4. [Appendix B.1] The threshold beta is described as the best cutoff value of the ROC curve, but the ROC curve appears to be computed on the test set; please specify whether the threshold is chosen on a validation set to avoid optimistic bias.
  5. [Introduction] The paper mentions 'up to 4.0x' lower violation rates in the introduction, but the reported numbers in Table 5 show ratios around 2-3x; please reconcile these figures.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'mutual prediction' cost-assignment loss in Eq. (11) defines episodic and per-step costs only through each other, so the dense-cost prediction is a fitted quantity rather than a supervised prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eq. (11); test-time Eq. (13); pseudocode Figure 9]
    "We expect the episodic cost can be considered as the sum of cost on all non-violation state-action pairs: ˆC(y)= ∑_{t=1}^{T−1} ˆc(st, at, y, τt). ... LCA = E(τ,y)∼D[(∑_{t=1}^{T−1} ˆc(st, at, y, τt)− ˆC(y))2]. This mutual prediction loss function LCA is only used to update the episodic-cost prediction layer and cost assignment layer, and not to update the parameters of the trajectory encoder or text encoder during backpropagation."

    L_CA contains no supervision from the true violation cost: there is no term regressing the episodic-cost prediction \hat C(y) or the per-step costs \hat c_t to the manual checker's cost label. The two quantities are trained only to equal each other, so any pair with \hat C(y)=sum_t \hat c_t (e.g., all outputs equal to the same constant) minimizes L_CA, and the decomposition is unidentifiable. These unconstrained outputs are then used as the predicted cost in Eq. (13) for policy training, and the resulting violation-rate reduction is attributed to TTCT's textual comprehension. The dense cost is thus a fitted quantity renamed as a 'prediction'; its apparent success does not by itself derive from the ground-truth constraint semantics.

full rationale

The trajectory-text alignment component is not circular: it is trained with MC and WT losses against ground-truth pair labels (from hand-written violation checkers) and evaluated on held-out pairs (AUC 0.98), and the zero-shot LavaWall test is an external transfer check. The circularity is confined to the cost-assignment component: Eq. (11) is a 'mutual prediction' between the episodic-cost head and the single-step-cost head, with no target from the true cost function. Since any pair of equal values can drive L_CA to zero, the per-step costs are unconstrained by violation status, yet they are presented as 'accurate single-step cost predictions' and used as the policy's cost signal. This makes the dense-cost explanation for the lower violation rates partially circular or unsupported, while the main violation-prediction claim retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the availability and correctness of offline labels from manual violation checkers, the representativeness of template-generated constraints, adequate coverage by random-policy trajectories, and the validity of the additive cost-decomposition signal. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • threshold beta = best ROC cutoff (e.g., 7.09 in Figure 11)
    Threshold in Equation 13 that converts trajectory-text similarity into a hard violation cost; selected from held-out ROC analysis (Appendix B.1).
  • temperature alpha = learnable
    Learnable temperature scaling the cosine similarity in Equation 4; trained with the contrastive loss.
  • trajectory length = 200
    Fixed maximum trajectory length in training (Table 3); the paper reports performance degrades for longer trajectories (Figure 16), indicating sensitivity to this setting.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The manually designed violation-checking functions correctly identify all violations and are used to label the training pairs.
    Appendix A.1 states every constraint has a hand-written violation checker; if these are wrong, both training labels and the evaluation metric (Avg. C) are corrupted.
  • domain assumption Template-generated textual constraints are representative of the trajectory-level constraints the authors claim to be universal.
    The 200+ constraints are produced by an automatic descriptor with predefined templates (Appendix A.1), not by humans for novel situations; this supports the method's generality only weakly.
  • domain assumption Offline trajectories from a random policy cover the state-action regions relevant to violating the constraints.
    The dataset is collected with random exploration (Appendix A.1); if rare violation-relevant states are not visited, the embeddings and costs will be poorly calibrated for those states.
  • domain assumption A dense per-step cost learned only to sum to the episodic cost is a valid proxy for true per-step risk.
    The cost assignment loss (Equation 11) enforces only an additive constraint, with no external per-step supervision; the case study (Appendix B.2) is qualitative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Text to Trajectory: Exploring Complex Constraint Representation and Decomposition in Safe Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZYOFHPQ

@misc{pith2026241208920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Text to Trajectory: Exploring Complex Constraint Representation and Decomposition in Safe Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZYOFHPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08920}
}
read the original abstract

Safe reinforcement learning (RL) requires the agent to finish a given task while obeying specific constraints. Giving constraints in natural language form has great potential for practical scenarios due to its flexible transfer capability and accessibility. Previous safe RL methods with natural language constraints typically need to design cost functions manually for each constraint, which requires domain expertise and lacks flexibility. In this paper, we harness the dual role of text in this task, using it not only to provide constraint but also as a training signal. We introduce the Trajectory-level Textual Constraints Translator (TTCT) to replace the manually designed cost function. Our empirical results demonstrate that TTCT effectively comprehends textual constraint and trajectory, and the policies trained by TTCT can achieve a lower violation rate than the standard cost function. Extra studies are conducted to demonstrate that the TTCT has zero-shot transfer capability to adapt to constraint-shift environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TTCT overview. TTCT consists of two training components: (1) the text-trajectory alignment component connects trajectory to text with multimodal architecture, and (2) the cost assignment component assigns a cost value to each state-action based on its impact on satisfying the constraint. When training RL policy, the text-trajectory alignment component is used to predict whether a trajectory violates a given constrai… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) One layout in Hazard-World-Grid [14], where orange tiles are lava, blue tiles are water and green tiles are grass. Agents need to collect reward objects in the grid while avoiding violating our designed textual constraint for the entire episode. (b) Robot navigation task SafetyGoal that is built in Safety-Gymnasium [37], where there are multiple types of objects in the environment. Agents need to reach the goal … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evaluation results of our proposed method TTCT. The blue bars are our proposed cost prediction (CP) mode performance and the orange bars are the ground-truth cost (GC) mode performance. The black dashed lines are PPO performance. (a) Results on Hazard-World-Grid task. (b) Results on SafetyGoal task. 6.2 Main Results and Analysis The evaluation results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Learning curve of our proposed method TTCT. Each column is an algorithm. The six figures on the left show the results of experiments on the Hazard-World-Grid task and the six figures on the right show the results of experiments on the SafetyGoal task. The solid line is…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study of removing the cost assignment (CA) component. The blue bars are cost prediction (CP) mode performance with full TTCT and the orange bars is the cost prediction (CP) mode performance without CA component. The black dashed lines are PPO performance. (a) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of Pareto frontiers. We compare the performance of 200 policies trained using cost prediction (CP) and 200 policies trained with ground-truth cost (GC). The ☀ symbol represents the policy on the Pareto frontier. And we connect the Pareto-optimal policies with a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zero-shot adaptation capability of TTCT on LavaWall task. The left figure shows the average reward and the right figure shows the average cost. 7 Conclusion and Future Work In this paper, we study the problem of safe RL with trajectory-level natural language constraint…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A diagram illustrating the usage of gT , gC and g ∗ T , g ∗ C when training policy. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pseudocode for the code of training our TTCT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heatmap of cosine similarity between trajectory and text embeddings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ROC curve of text-trajectory alignment component. The x-axis represents the false positive rate, and the y-axis represents the true positive rate. The closer the AUC value is to 1, the better the performance of the model; conversely, the closer the AUC value is to 0, …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Case study of cost assignment component on three types of textual constraints. The first row of every case shows the textual constraint, the second row shows the trajectory of the agent in the environment and each square represents the object stepped on by the agent a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Learning curves for different types of textual constraints. The left figure shows the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Inference time of different trajectory lengths for Hazard-World-Grid on the V100-32G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Empirical analyses on Hazard-World-Grid with varying text encoders. We choose three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evaluation results of different trajectory lengths for Hazard-World-Grid. Sets of trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Safe reinforcement learning with natural language constraints,

    T.-Y . Yang, M. Y . Hu, Y . Chow, P. J. Ramadge, and K. Narasimhan, “Safe reinforcement learning with natural language constraints,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 13 794–13 808, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [27]

    Safe reinforcement learning with free-form natural language constraints and pre-trained language models,

    X. Lou, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, K. Huang, and Y . Du, “Safe reinforcement learning with free-form natural language constraints and pre-trained language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07553, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Constrained policy optimization,

    J. Achiam, D. Held, A. Tamar, and P. Abbeel, “Constrained policy optimization,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 22–31

    2017

  4. [2]

    Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search,

    D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. Van Den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, V . Panneershelvam, M. Lanctotet al., “Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search,” nature, vol. 529, no. 7587, pp. 484–489, 2016

    2016

  5. [3]

    A review of safe reinforcement learning: Methods, theory and applications,

    S. Gu, L. Yang, Y . Du, G. Chen, F. Walter, J. Wang, Y . Yang, and A. Knoll, “A review of safe reinforcement learning: Methods, theory and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10330, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [4]

    Mastering the game of go without human knowledge,

    D. Silver, J. Schrittwieser, K. Simonyan, I. Antonoglou, A. Huang, A. Guez, T. Hubert, L. Baker, M. Lai, A. Bolton et al., “Mastering the game of go without human knowledge,” nature, vol. 550, no. 7676, pp. 354–359, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,

    S. Levine, C. Finn, T. Darrell, and P. Abbeel, “End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 39, pp. 1–40, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning,

    A. Ray, J. Achiam, and D. Amodei, “Benchmarking safe exploration in deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01708, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 2, 2019

    arXiv 1910

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    Constrained update projection approach to safe policy optimization,

    L. Yang, J. Ji, J. Dai, L. Zhang, B. Zhou, P. Li, Y . Yang, and G. Pan, “Constrained update projection approach to safe policy optimization,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 9111–9124, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    Responsive safety in reinforcement learning by pid lagrangian methods,

    A. Stooke, J. Achiam, and P. Abbeel, “Responsive safety in reinforcement learning by pid lagrangian methods,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 9133–9143

    2020

  3. [9]

    First order constrained optimization in policy space,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Vuong, and K. Ross, “First order constrained optimization in policy space,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 15 338–15 349, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    Lyapunov-based safe policy optimization for continuous control,

    Y . Chow, O. Nachum, A. Faust, E. Duenez-Guzman, and M. Ghavamzadeh, “Lyapunov-based safe policy optimization for continuous control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10031, 2019

    1901 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Projection-based constrained policy optimization,

    T.-Y . Yang, J. Rosca, K. Narasimhan, and P. J. Ramadge, “Projection-based constrained policy optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03152, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Beating atari with natural language guided reinforcement learning,

    R. Kaplan, C. Sauer, and A. Sosa, “Beating atari with natural language guided reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05539, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Guiding safe rein- forcement learning policies using structured language constraints

    B. Prakash, N. R. Waytowich, A. Ganesan, T. Oates, and T. Mohsenin, “Guiding safe rein- forcement learning policies using structured language constraints.” in SafeAI@ AAAI, 2020, pp. 153–161

    2020

  8. [15]

    Learning by playing solving sparse reward tasks from scratch,

    M. Riedmiller, R. Hafner, T. Lampe, M. Neunert, J. Degrave, T. Wiele, V . Mnih, N. Heess, and J. T. Springenberg, “Learning by playing solving sparse reward tasks from scratch,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 4344–4353

    2018

  9. [16]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  11. [18]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018. 11

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review,

    P. H. Le-Khac, G. Healy, and A. F. Smeaton, “Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review,”Ieee Access, vol. 8, pp. 193 907–193 934, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  14. [21]

    R. S. Sutton, Temporal credit assignment in reinforcement learning . University of Mas- sachusetts Amherst, 1984

    1984

  15. [22]

    A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning,

    J. Garcıa and F. Fernández, “A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1437–1480, 2015

    2015

  16. [23]

    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,” in Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011, ...

    2011

  17. [24]

    Learn- ing complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,

    A. Rajeswaran, V . Kumar, A. Gupta, G. Vezzani, J. Schulman, E. Todorov, and S. Levine, “Learn- ing complex dexterous manipulation with deep reinforcement learning and demonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10087, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Autonomous helicopter aerobatics through apprenticeship learning,

    P. Abbeel, A. Coates, and A. Y . Ng, “Autonomous helicopter aerobatics through apprenticeship learning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 1608–1639, 2010

    2010

  19. [26]

    Grounded language learning in a simulated 3d world,

    K. M. Hermann, F. Hill, S. Green, F. Wang, R. Faulkner, H. Soyer, D. Szepesvari, W. M. Czarnecki, M. Jaderberg, D. Teplyashin et al., “Grounded language learning in a simulated 3d world,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06551, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Vime: Variational information maximizing exploration,

    R. Houthooft, X. Chen, Y . Duan, J. Schulman, F. De Turck, and P. Abbeel, “Vime: Variational information maximizing exploration,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Using natural language for reward shaping in rein- forcement learning,

    P. Goyal, S. Niekum, and R. J. Mooney, “Using natural language for reward shaping in rein- forcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02020, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sequence modeling of temporal credit assignment for episodic reinforcement learning,

    Y . Liu, Y . Luo, Y . Zhong, X. Chen, Q. Liu, and J. Peng, “Sequence modeling of temporal credit assignment for episodic reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13420, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Altman, Constrained Markov decision processes

    E. Altman, Constrained Markov decision processes. Routledge, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Model-free episodic control,

    C. Blundell, B. Uria, A. Pritzel, Y . Li, A. Ruderman, J. Z. Leibo, J. Rae, D. Wierstra, and D. Hassabis, “Model-free episodic control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04460, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Exploration in deep reinforcement learning: A survey,

    P. Ladosz, L. Weng, M. Kim, and H. Oh, “Exploration in deep reinforcement learning: A survey,” Information Fusion, vol. 85, pp. 1–22, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    On information and sufficiency,

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, “On information and sufficiency,”The annals of mathematical statistics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951

    1951

  27. [35]

    Actionclip: A new paradigm for video action recognition,

    M. Wang, J. Xing, and Y . Liu, “Actionclip: A new paradigm for video action recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08472, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Safety gymnasium: A unified safe reinforcement learning benchmark,

    J. Ji, B. Zhang, J. Zhou, X. Pan, W. Huang, R. Sun, Y . Geng, Y . Zhong, J. Dai, and Y . Yang, “Safety gymnasium: A unified safe reinforcement learning benchmark,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023. 12

    2023

  30. [38]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

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

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fudenberg and J

    D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game theory. MIT press, 1991

    1991

  32. [40]

    Minigrid & miniworld: Modular & customizable reinforcement learning environments for goal-oriented tasks,

    M. Chevalier-Boisvert, B. Dai, M. Towers, R. Perez-Vicente, L. Willems, S. Lahlou, S. Pal, P. S. Castro, and J. Terry, “Minigrid & miniworld: Modular & customizable reinforcement learning environments for goal-oriented tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    An introduction to roc analysis,

    T. Fawcett, “An introduction to roc analysis,” Pattern recognition letters, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 861–874, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,

    T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey, “Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 5149–5169, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. Müller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 982–987, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    A soft artificial muscle driven robot with reinforcement learning,

    T. Yang, Y . Xiao, Z. Zhang, Y . Liang, G. Li, M. Zhang, S. Li, T.-W. Wong, Y . Wang, T. Liet al., “A soft artificial muscle driven robot with reinforcement learning,” Scientific reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 14518, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,

    S. Feng, H. Sun, X. Yan, H. Zhu, Z. Zou, S. Shen, and H. X. Liu, “Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,” Nature, vol. 615, no. 7953, pp. 620–627, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  40. [48]

    Accelerating safe reinforcement learning with constraint-mismatched policies,

    T.-Y . Yang, J. Rosca, K. Narasimhan, and P. J. Ramadge, “Accelerating safe reinforcement learning with constraint-mismatched policies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11645, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Policy learning with constraints in model-free reinforcement learning: A survey,

    Y . Liu, A. Halev, and X. Liu, “Policy learning with constraints in model-free reinforcement learning: A survey,” in The 30th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (ijcai), 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Reinforcement learning of non-markov decision processes,

    S. D. Whitehead and L.-J. Lin, “Reinforcement learning of non-markov decision processes,” Artificial intelligence, vol. 73, no. 1-2, pp. 271–306, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,” OpenAI blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019. 13 A Dataset and Training Details A.1 Dataset In our task setting, humans need to provide high-level textual ins...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Quantitative textual constraint describes a quantitative relationship in which an entity in the environment cannot be touched beyond a specific number of times, which can be interpreted as the entity’s tolerance threshold, and when the threshold is exceeded, the entity may exp...

  45. [53]

    For instance, it’s safe to drink or drive when they happen independently, but when they occur in sequence (i.e., drinking first and then driving), it becomes dangerous

    Sequential textual constraint describes a sequence-based relationship, where the occurrence of two or more distinct actions independently may not pose a risk, but when they occur in sequence, it does. For instance, it’s safe to drink or drive when they happen independently, bu...

  46. [54]

    Relational textual constraint describes constraints on the relationships between an agent and entities in its environment, such as maintaining a certain distance, always being in front of that entity, or not staying too far from it

  47. [55]

    This type of constraint thereby presents a higher cognitive burden for our TTCT to comprehend

    Mathematical textual constraints often do not provide explicit instructions to the agent regarding what actions to avoid, but rather present logical descriptions that demand the model’s ability to reason mathematically. This type of constraint thereby presents a higher cogniti...

  48. [56]

    The environment is a 12× 12 grid, with the gray walls surrounding the perimeter

    Hazard-World-Grid. The environment is a 12× 12 grid, with the gray walls surrounding the perimeter. The agent can only explore within the grid. Inside the grid, some items provide rewards: blue keys, red balls, and yellow boxes. Collecting all of these items will be considered...

  49. [57]

    Robot navigation task, the environment has a navigation target, which is completed when the robot reaches the target

    SafetyGoal. Robot navigation task, the environment has a navigation target, which is completed when the robot reaches the target. The environment also contains vases (cyan squares) and Hazards (Mediumslateblue circles). The vases can be moved by the robot and hazards are fixed

  50. [58]

    You only have 20 HP . Lava and grass are dangerous, they will make you lose 3 and 2 HP , respectively. However, water can regenerate 1 HP . Please don’t die

    LavaWall. The LavaWall environment shares the same task goal as Hazard-World-Grid but with different hazardous materials. Whenever the environment is initialized, a random lava wall with only one entrance is generated in the grid, and the agent must learn to obtain the reward ...

Pith tools

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