REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references
Efficient Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning with Cross-Task Policy Guidance
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Multi-task reinforcement learning can be accelerated by letting each task borrow the trained control policy of another task, selected by a learned guide policy that re-evaluates its choice every few steps.
desk verdict A genuinely new multi-task RL guidance mechanism backed by broad experiments; the hindsight correction has an unanalyzed bias, but the empirical story is solid enough for peer review. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the guide policy $\Pi^g_i(j_t|s_t)$, a discrete policy per task whose action is the index of a control policy to use as behavior policy for the next $K$ timesteps. It is trained by a K-step Bellman operator $B^{\Pi^g_i}Q^g_i(s_t,j_t) = R^g_i(s_t,j_t) + \gamma^K \mathbb{E}[Q^g_i(s_{t+K}, j_{t+K})]$, where $R^g_i$ is the discounted cumulative reward of following $\pi_{j_t}$ for $K$ steps. Around this sit two gates: the policy-filter gate compares a comparable guide Q-value $\hat{Q}^g_i(s_t,j)$ (which includes the current task's entropy term) with the state value $V_i(s_t)$ and masks out policies that cannot beat the task's own policy; the guide-block gate selects tasks needing guidance via $\log \alpha_i \le \frac{1}{N}\sum_j \log \alpha_j$ using SAC's temperature as a difficulty signal. The hindsight off-policy correction — reassigning the stored guide action $j_t$ to $j'_t$ that maximizes the likelihood of the recorded action sequence — is what makes off-policy training of the guide stable while control policies are simultaneously updated, since Q-value updates shift from $Q^g_i(s_t,j_t)$ to $Q^g_i(s_t,j'_t)$.
What would settle it
Record a set of guided transitions (s_t, {a_{t'}}, r^g_t), compute j'_t by the maximum-likelihood reassignment, then roll out π_{j'_t} from s_t in the same task and compare the realized K-step return with r^g_t; if the returns systematically diverge, or if a variant of CTPG that skips the hindsight correction and trains the guide on the original j_t outperforms the corrected version, the correction's central assumption is violated.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that explicit policy reuse across tasks can be learned as a separate control problem: a discrete guide policy $\Pi^g_i$ selects, every $K$ steps, a behavior policy $\pi_{j_t}$ from the candidate set $\{\pi_1,\dots,\pi_N\}$, and the chosen policy then rolls out $K$ steps that are stored as the current task's transitions. This works because the guide policy is trained with its own Q-function $Q^g_i(s_t, j_t)$ and reward $R^g_i$ defined as the discounted $K$-step return of the behavior policy, so the guide learns which policies help in which states, not just which single action looks good. Because the control policies are non-stationary during training, the paper's hindsight correction reassigns each past guide decision to the control policy $j'_t = \arg\max_j \sum_{t'=t}^{t+K-1} \log \pi_j(a_{t'}|s_{t'})$ that best explains the recorded action sequence, and the Q-target uses that reassignment. Two gates refine this process: the policy-filter gate masks out any control policy whose comparable guide Q-value $\hat{Q}^g_i(s_t,j)$ falls below the task's own value $V_i(s_t)$, and the guide-block gate restricts guidance to tasks whose log SAC temperature is at or below the average, i.e., tasks that still need help. Experiments across MetaWorld-MT10/MT50 and HalfCheetah-MT5/MT8 show that adding CTPG to five parameter-sharing baselines (MTSAC, MHSAC, PCGrad, SM, PaCo) raises final performance and sample efficiency in nearly all settings.
Load-bearing premise
The hindsight correction assumes that the reward actually collected under the original behavior policy is still a valid estimate of the return for the reassigned policy j'_t; if the reassigned policy would have acted differently and earned different rewards, the guide Q-values become biased.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Adding CTPG to existing parameter-sharing MTRL methods (MTSAC, MHSAC, PCGrad, SM, PaCo) improves final performance and sample efficiency on MetaWorld and HalfCheetah benchmarks, with gains growing as the number of tasks increases.
- CTPG works without implicit sharing: Single-task SAC with CTPG outperforms plain single-task SAC on MetaWorld-MT10 and HalfCheetah-MT8.
- Given pre-trained expert policies, CTPG can transfer their skills to a new set of tasks faster than learning from scratch.
- The policy-filter gate is the most important component; removing it degrades performance significantly, while the guide-block gate and hindsight correction each contribute training stability and efficiency.
- The guide step K is a critical hyperparameter; both very short and very long K hurt performance, with K=10 working well across the tested environments.
Reading between the lines
- A natural extension the paper does not pursue is making the guide step K adaptive: since the optimal duration of a shared skill segment likely varies with state and task, a learned or state-dependent K could remove the paper's main hyperparameter.
- The policy-filter gate's comparison of a comparable guide Q-value with the task's own state value is a general delegation criterion that could transfer to hierarchical RL or offline RL settings, where deciding when to trust a previously learned policy is a core problem.
- The results suggest a testable prediction: CTPG's benefit should scale with the degree of temporal subtask overlap among tasks, so constructing MetaWorld subsets with controlled pairwise similarity would let a reader verify the mechanism directly.
- The guide-block gate's use of SAC temperature as a difficulty proxy is specific to maximum-entropy algorithms; a more portable variant, comparing the guide policy's own estimated value against staying with the task's control policy, could make the framework work with TD3-style backbones.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes Cross-Task Policy Guidance (CTPG), an MTRL framework in which each task learns a guide policy that selects, every K timesteps, one of all tasks' control policies to serve as the behavior policy for data collection. Two gating mechanisms are added: a policy-filter gate that masks out control policies whose comparable guide Q-value is below the current task's value function, and a guide-block gate that withholds guidance for tasks deemed easy via SAC temperature. A hindsight off-policy correction relabels stored guide decisions by maximum likelihood over the stored action sequence. The method is evaluated by combining it with five parameter-sharing baselines (MTSAC, MHSAC, PCGrad, SM, PaCo) on MetaWorld-MT10/MT50 and HalfCheetah-MT5/MT8, with ablations for each component and additional studies of the guide step, Monte Carlo sampling, and a TD3-based variant. The empirical claim is that CTPG improves performance and sample efficiency over the base methods and over the QMP baseline in nearly all comparisons.
Significance. If the results hold, CTPG is a useful and general contribution: it changes only the data-collection process, can be layered on top of existing parameter-sharing MTRL methods, and is supported by a broad experimental matrix (five backbones, four benchmarks, ablations, and a TD3 instantiation). The paper also provides unusually complete implementation details, pseudocode, hyperparameter tables, and additional appendices, which strengthen reproducibility. The main open question is theoretical rather than empirical: the hindsight off-policy correction that is central to guide-policy training has no formal justification or bias analysis, and the derivation of the policy-filter gate contains a SAC-specific inconsistency. These issues do not invalidate the empirical story, but they need to be addressed before the method's mechanism can be regarded as fully sound.
major comments (3)
- [Section 4.1, Algorithm 2, Eq. (9)] The hindsight off-policy correction is the load-bearing step for guide-policy training, but its target is not unbiased. After relabeling j_t to j'_t by Eq. (9), Algorithm 2 updates Q^g_i(s_t,j'_t) toward r^g_t + γ^K V^g_i(s_{t+K}), where r^g_t and s_{t+K} were generated under the original behavior policy π_{j_t}, not under π_{j'_t}. No importance ratio or other correction is applied, so the updated value estimates the return of a policy different from the one whose action is being evaluated. Because the guide actor is trained to fit the softmax of Q^g (Eq. (19)), any systematic bias in Q^g changes which control policies are selected and hence all training trajectories. The ablations in Figures 5(c) and 11(c) show that the correction helps empirically, but they do not establish that the bias is negligible or self-correcting. Please add a formal justification of the relabeling, an importance-corrected target, or a controlled diagnostic (e.g., comparing guide Q-values against Monte Carlo returns for the relabeled policies).
- [Section 4.2, Eq. (10)] The derivation of the policy-filter gate contains a mathematical inconsistency. Eq. (10) claims that the guide Q-value of the always-π_i guide policy, defined with the raw reward R^g_i of Eq. (6), equals V_i(s_t). Under SAC, however, V_i(s_t) includes the entropy bonus E_{a∼π_i}[Q_i(s_t,a) − α_i log π_i(a|s_t)] (Eq. (2)); the raw-return object in Eq. (10) equals the ordinary (non-entropy) state value, not SAC's V_i. The introduction of the comparable guide Q-value in Eq. (13) repairs the gate, and Algorithm 3 uses that quantity, but Eq. (10) should either be stated for the non-entropy value function or replaced by the SAC-correct expansion of Appendix B so the motivation matches the implementation.
- [Section 4.2, Algorithm 3] Algorithm 3 does not specify the behavior when the policy-filter mask is identically zero. The text in Section 4.2 says that in this case the current task's control policy is the most proficient and other policies are unnecessary, but line 13 samples j_t from Normalize(Π^g_i(·|s_t) · m(s_t)), which is undefined when m(s_t)=0. Please state the fallback explicitly (e.g., use π_i for the next K steps) and confirm that the implementation follows the stated algorithm.
minor comments (6)
- [Equation (11) and Algorithm 3] Equation (11) writes the mask condition with Q^g_i, while Algorithm 3 and Eq. (13) use the comparable guide Q-value \hat{Q}^g_i; unify the notation to avoid ambiguity.
- [Table 1] Table 1 reports only means and standard deviations over five seeds; several differences between CTPG and QMP are within one standard deviation (e.g., MHSAC on HalfCheetah-MT5, 9.25±0.12 vs 9.09±0.64), so the claimed improvements would be more convincing with paired significance tests or effect sizes.
- [Figures 5(c) and 11(c)] The captions of Figures 5(c) and 11(c) read 'Ablation on Hindsight Correct'; the word 'Correction' is truncated.
- [Section 5.6] The baseline in the new-task exploration experiment should be described more explicitly: it is not clear whether the MTSAC and SM comparisons have access to the same expert policies without CTPG, or whether the comparison is from-scratch learning without experts.
- [Section 2 and Table 9] The related-work description of QMP as a one-step Q-filter is in tension with Table 9, which sets QMP's temporally extended length to 10; clarify how the baseline was instantiated.
- [Section 4.3] Equation (14) is introduced with 'α_i is a metric reflecting relative difficulty', but the relationship between temperature and difficulty is heuristic; a sentence noting that this is a heuristic, as later acknowledged for the win-rate alternative, would improve precision.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: CTPG's guide-policy mechanism is trained by standard RL targets and experimentally validated; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing related-work reference.
full rationale
The paper's central claim is empirical: adding CTPG to parameter-sharing baselines improves benchmark performance. The guide policy is trained with a discrete-action SAC critic whose target is r^g_t + gamma^K V^g_i(s_{t+K}) computed from collected transitions, not from the reported final results. The identity Q^~g_i(s_t,i) = V_i(s_t) in Eq. 10 follows from the definition of R^g_i as cumulative rewards under pi_i and the repeated Bellman expansion; it is a mathematical lemma used to construct the policy-filter gate, not a predicted quantity derived from the gate. The comparable guide Q-value in Eq. 13 is likewise defined so that the special always-pi_i guide policy has value V_i; this is a designed equivalence, and its usefulness is tested by ablation rather than assumed as an output. The guide-block gate (Eq. 14) is a heuristic threshold on SAC temperatures, and the paper explicitly ablates it against a success-rate metric. The hindsight off-policy correction (Eq. 9) reassigns behavior-policy labels by maximum likelihood; although it may introduce bias because the reward is collected under the old behavior policy, this is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circular reduction: no term is defined in terms of the claim being tested. The single self-citation [10] appears in the introduction as one example of parameter-sharing network design and is not load-bearing for CTPG's mechanism or results. All reported comparisons are against external baselines (QMP, MTSAC, MHSAC, PCGrad, SM, PaCo, BPT) on MetaWorld and HalfCheetah, so the empirical claims are not forced by construction.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- guide step K =
10
- Monte Carlo sampling times H =
5
- guide-block gate threshold =
mean(log α_i) over tasks
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Each task MDP shares the same state and action spaces.
- domain assumption SAC's temperature α_i reflects task difficulty, with difficult tasks having higher entropy and lower α.
- standard math The comparable guide Q-value identity Qhat_g_i(st,i) = Vi(st).
- domain assumption Cross-task policy guidance accelerates learning when tasks share skills.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning with Cross-Task Policy Guidance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETFQBEYV
@misc{pith2026250706615,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Efficient Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning with Cross-Task Policy Guidance},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETFQBEYV}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06615}
}
read the original abstract
Multi-task reinforcement learning endeavors to efficiently leverage shared information across various tasks, facilitating the simultaneous learning of multiple tasks. Existing approaches primarily focus on parameter sharing with carefully designed network structures or tailored optimization procedures. However, they overlook a direct and complementary way to exploit cross-task similarities: the control policies of tasks already proficient in some skills can provide explicit guidance for unmastered tasks to accelerate skills acquisition. To this end, we present a novel framework called Cross-Task Policy Guidance (CTPG), which trains a guide policy for each task to select the behavior policy interacting with the environment from all tasks' control policies, generating better training trajectories. In addition, we propose two gating mechanisms to improve the learning efficiency of CTPG: one gate filters out control policies that are not beneficial for guidance, while the other gate blocks tasks that do not necessitate guidance. CTPG is a general framework adaptable to existing parameter sharing approaches. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that incorporating CTPG with these approaches significantly enhances performance in manipulation and locomotion benchmarks.
Figures
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Dynamic programming
Richard Bellman. Dynamic programming. Science, 153(3731):34–37, 1966
1966
-
[2]
Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. OpenAI Gym. CoRR, abs/1606.01540, 2016
arXiv 2016
-
[3]
Rich Caruana. Multitask learning. Machine Learning, 28:41–75, 1997
work page 1997
-
[4]
Gradnorm: Gradient normalization for adaptive loss balancing in deep multitask networks
Zhao Chen, Vijay Badrinarayanan, Chen-Yu Lee, and Andrew Rabinovich. Gradnorm: Gradient normalization for adaptive loss balancing in deep multitask networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 794–803, 2018
work page 2018
-
[5]
Multi-task reinforcement learning with task representation method
Myungsik Cho, Whiyoung Jung, and Youngchul Sung. Multi-task reinforcement learning with task representation method. In ICLR Workshop on Generalizable Policy Learning in Physical World, pages 1–11, 2022
work page 2022
-
[6]
Soft actor-critic for discrete action settings
Petros Christodoulou. Soft actor-critic for discrete action settings. CoRR, abs/1910.07207, 2019
arXiv 1910
-
[7]
Divide- and-conquer reinforcement learning
Dibya Ghosh, Avi Singh, Aravind Rajeswaran, Vikash Kumar, and Sergey Levine. Divide- and-conquer reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, pages 1–10, 2018
work page 2018
-
[8]
Reinforcement learning with deep energy-based policies
Tuomas Haarnoja, Haoran Tang, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Reinforcement learning with deep energy-based policies. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1352–1361, 2017
work page 2017
Show all 35 references
-
[9]
Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor
Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1856–1865, 2018
2018
-
[10]
Not all tasks are equally difficult: Multi-task deep reinforcement learning with dynamic depth routing
Jinmin He, Kai Li, Yifan Zang, Haobo Fu, Qiang Fu, Junliang Xing, and Jian Cheng. Not all tasks are equally difficult: Multi-task deep reinforcement learning with dynamic depth routing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 12376–12384, 2024
2024
-
[11]
Benchmark environments for multitask learning in continuous domains
Peter Henderson, Wei-Di Chang, Florian Shkurti, Johanna Hansen, David Meger, and Gregory Dudek. Benchmark environments for multitask learning in continuous domains. In ICML Workshop on Lifelong Learning: A Reinforcement Learning Approach, pages 1–6, 2017
2017
-
[12]
End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies
Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Darrell, and Pieter Abbeel. End-to-end training of deep visuomotor policies. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(1):1334–1373, 2016
2016
-
[13]
Lillicrap, Jonathan J
Timothy P. Lillicrap, Jonathan J. Hunt, Alexander Pritzel, Nicolas Heess, Tom Erez, Yuval Tassa, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, pages 1–10, 2016
2016
-
[14]
Conflict-averse gradient descent for multi-task learning
Bo Liu, Xingchao Liu, Xiaojie Jin, Peter Stone, and Qiang Liu. Conflict-averse gradient descent for multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 18878–18890, 2021
2021
-
[15]
Q- functionals for value-based continuous control
Samuel Lobel, Sreehari Rammohan, Bowen He, Shangqun Yu, and George Konidaris. Q- functionals for value-based continuous control. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 8932–8939, 2023. 10
2023
-
[16]
Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G
V olodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A. Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin A. Riedmiller, Andreas Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, Stig Pe- tersen, Charles Beattie, Amir Sadik, Ioannis Antonoglou, Helen King, Dharshan Kumaran, Daan Wierstr...
2015
-
[17]
Overcoming exploration in reinforcement learning with demonstrations
Ashvin Nair, Bob McGrew, Marcin Andrychowicz, Wojciech Zaremba, and Pieter Abbeel. Overcoming exploration in reinforcement learning with demonstrations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 6292–6299, 2018
2018
-
[18]
Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming
Martin L Puterman. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. John Wiley & Sons, 2014
2014
-
[19]
An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks
Sebastian Ruder. An overview of multi-task learning in deep neural networks. CoRR, abs/1706.05098, 2017
2017 arXiv
-
[20]
Hierarchical and interpretable skill acqui- sition in multi-task reinforcement learning
Tianmin Shu, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Hierarchical and interpretable skill acqui- sition in multi-task reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, pages 1–11, 2018
2018
-
[21]
Multi-task reinforcement learning with context- based representations
Shagun Sodhani, Amy Zhang, and Joelle Pineau. Multi-task reinforcement learning with context- based representations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9767–9779, 2021
2021
-
[22]
PaCo: Parameter- compositional multi-task reinforcement learning
Lingfeng Sun, Haichao Zhang, Wei Xu, and Masayoshi Tomizuka. PaCo: Parameter- compositional multi-task reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 21495–21507, 2022
2022
-
[23]
Czarnecki, John Quan, James Kirkpatrick, Raia Hadsell, Nicolas Heess, and Razvan Pascanu
Yee Teh, Victor Bapst, Wojciech M. Czarnecki, John Quan, James Kirkpatrick, Raia Hadsell, Nicolas Heess, and Razvan Pascanu. Distral: Robust multitask reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4496–4506, 2017
2017
-
[24]
MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control
Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 5026–5033, 2012
2012
-
[25]
A survey of multi-task deep reinforcement learning
Nelson Vithayathil Varghese and Qusay H Mahmoud. A survey of multi-task deep reinforcement learning. Electronics, 9(9):1363, 2020
2020
-
[26]
Disentan- gling transfer in continual reinforcement learning
Maciej Wolczyk, Michał Zaj ˛ ac, Razvan Pascanu, Łukasz Kuci´nski, and Piotr Miło´s. Disentan- gling transfer in continual reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:6304–6317, 2022
2022
-
[27]
Multi-task reinforcement learning with soft modularization
Ruihan Yang, Huazhe Xu, Yi Wu, and Xiaolong Wang. Multi-task reinforcement learning with soft modularization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4767–4777, 2020
2020
-
[28]
Mastering complex control in MOBA games with deep reinforcement learning
Deheng Ye, Zhao Liu, Mingfei Sun, Bei Shi, Peilin Zhao, Hao Wu, Hongsheng Yu, Shaojie Yang, Xipeng Wu, Qingwei Guo, Qiaobo Chen, Yinyuting Yin, Hao Zhang, Tengfei Shi, Liang Wang, Qiang Fu, Wei Yang, and Lanxiao Huang. Mastering complex control in MOBA games with deep reinforc...
2020
-
[29]
Conservative data sharing for multi-task offline reinforcement learning
Tianhe Yu, Aviral Kumar, Yevgen Chebotar, Karol Hausman, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Conservative data sharing for multi-task offline reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 11501–11516, 2021
2021
-
[30]
Gradient surgery for multi-task learning
Tianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Chelsea Finn. Gradient surgery for multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5824–5836, 2020
2020
-
[31]
Meta-World: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning
Tianhe Yu, Deirdre Quillen, Zhanpeng He, Ryan Julian, Karol Hausman, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Meta-World: A benchmark and evaluation for multi-task and meta reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1094–1100, 2020. 11
2020
-
[32]
Efficient multi-task reinforcement learning via selective behavior sharing
Grace Zhang, Ayush Jain, Injune Hwang, Shao-Hua Sun, and Joseph J Lim. Efficient multi-task reinforcement learning via selective behavior sharing. CoRR, abs/2302.00671, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[33]
CUP: Critic-guided policy reuse
Jin Zhang, Siyuan Li, and Chongjie Zhang. CUP: Critic-guided policy reuse. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 27537–27548, 2022
2022
-
[34]
t+K−1X t′=t γt′−t (Ri(st′, at′) +αiH(πi(·|st′))) # + γKEst+K∼Pi h ˆQ˜g i (st+K, i) i = Eat′ ∼πi,st′+1∼Pi
Yu Zhang and Qiang Yang. A survey on multi-task learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(12):5586–5609, 2021. 12 A Pseudo Code Without implicit knowledge sharing approaches, each task i has its control policy πi and guide policy Πg i . With implicit kn...
2021
-
[150]
Under the initial episode length setting of 150 timesteps, 42 tasks achieve a success rate exceeding 90%
We evaluate the rule-based policies provided by the MetaWorld benchmark across 100 sample episodes. Under the initial episode length setting of 150 timesteps, 42 tasks achieve a success rate exceeding 90%. However, among the remaining 8 tasks, the task Disassemble exhibits a m...
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.