Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Enhancing VLM Reward Models Through Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding structure-aware self-supervised losses to VLM reward models—via LoRA adapters—denoises rewards, speeds policy learning, improves alignment with ground truth, and reduces human preference labeling, all without g

desk verdict A genuinely new and useful combination of structural priors for online VLM reward fine-tuning, but the headline 'no ground-truth supervision' claim is only tested for the fine-tuning phase, not off-the-shelf models. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03875 v1 pith:CITUR6V3 submitted 2026-08-04 cs.LG cs.AI

Pyrros Koussios , Chenhao Li , Xin Chen , Andreas Krause This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords structure-awarefine-tuningVLMrewardmodelsself-supervisedcontrastiveaugmentationlossLipschitzregularizationLoRAalignment(EPIC)text-conditionedreinforcementlearning
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

This paper tries to show that the noisy, sometimes broken rewards that vision-language models produce for RL can be repaired by forcing the reward to respect the environment's structure, and that this repair needs no ground-truth labels. It introduces Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning (SAFT), which inserts tiny LoRA adapters into a frozen VLM's image encoder and updates them online with one of two self-supervised losses: contrastive augmentation for invariances, and Lipschitz-style regularization for smooth proportionality. Across CartPole, MountainCar, and two robotic manipulation tasks, SAFT reports faster policy convergence, lower EPIC distance to true rewards, and thousands of saved preference queries. A sympathetic reader should care because it offers a scalable alternative to human annotation: task structure itself becomes the supervision.

What carries the argument

SAFT itself: an online LoRA-based fine-tuning procedure with two self-supervised auxiliary losses. Contrastive Augmentation Loss (CAL) enforces reward invariance under task-preserving augmentations while keeping contrastive negatives separated to prevent representational collapse. Reward Lipschitz Regularization (RLR) penalizes deviations from proportionality between state-space distances and reward differences. Together they reshape the VLM's cosine-similarity reward landscape without ground-truth supervision.

What would settle it

Apply SAFT with a deliberately wrong prior—for example, using vertical flips as positive augmentations in CartPole, or RLR in an environment where equal-reward states are far apart in L2 space—and measure EPIC distance and policy return; if these do not worsen relative to the base VLM, the gains are not due to enforcing true task structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that VLM reward failures in RL are often not semantic misunderstanding but structural brittleness: the reward contains useful task information yet violates simple geometric properties of the environment. SAFT corrects this by fine-tuning a frozen VLM's image encoder with LoRA adapters using auxiliary self-supervised objectives—Contrastive Augmentation Loss for reward invariance under task-preserving transformations, and Reward Lipschitz Regularization for proportionality between state changes and reward changes. The paper reports that this online, ground-truth-free procedure consistently narrows the gap to ground-truth rewards, improves sample efficiency and convergence

Load-bearing premise

The structural prior chosen for an environment (which transformations are 'positive', or whether state distance tracks reward distance) must actually preserve or mirror the true reward's geometry; if it does not, the self-supervised loss will actively corrupt an already imperfect reward.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SAFT improves sample efficiency and convergence speed over the base VLM and over goal-baseline regularization in all four tested environments.
  • Fine-tuned reward models have substantially lower EPIC distance to ground-truth rewards, meaning the reward itself is better aligned, not just the policy exploiting shaping effects.
  • SAFT can substitute for thousands of binary preference comparisons, cutting human labeling effort in preference-based RL.
  • Off-the-shelf smaller VLMs that fail to converge can be made solvable by SAFT, narrowing the capability gap to larger models.
  • If SAFT's diagnosis is right, many VLM reward failures are structural brittleness, not semantic misunderstanding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if structural priors could be discovered automatically rather than hand-chosen per environment, this self-supervised recipe would generalize to new tasks without any reward annotation—a testable path the paper leaves open.
  • Editorial inference: the same two losses could plausibly regularize any dense learned reward function, including rewards generated by LLM code, not just VLM cosine-similarity rewards.
  • A failure mode to watch: applying a plausible but wrong prior (e.g., treating an asymmetry as a symmetry) should corrupt rewards; measuring that degradation would directly test the mechanism's specificity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning (SAFT), a method for improving VLM-based reward models in RL by fine-tuning LoRA adapters on the frozen image encoder using two self-supervised auxiliary objectives: a Contrastive Augmentation Loss (CAL) that enforces reward invariance to task-preserving transformations, and a Reward Lipschitz Regularization (RLR) loss that encourages proportionality between state changes and reward changes. The method is evaluated on CartPole, MountainCar, and two Isaac Lab manipulation tasks (Reach, ReposeCube), comparing against the unmodified base VLM and goal-baseline regularization. Reported results include policy learning curves, EPIC distances to ground-truth rewards, and reductions in the number of preference queries needed by a PbRL baseline. The paper claims SAFT consistently improves sample efficiency, reward alignment, and human-labeling efficiency, and that it can be essential for convergence when using smaller or off-the-shelf VLM reward models.

Significance. If the central claim holds, SAFT would provide a scalable, ground-truth-free way to improve VLM reward models by injecting task structure, reducing the need for human preference annotation. The paper is honest about many limitations and includes substantial empirical work: four environments, multiple VLM backbones (ViT-B-16, SigLIP2, MetaCLIP), ablations of loss components and window sizes, and wall-clock overhead reporting. However, the central evidence for the headline claim is currently conditional: the main quantitative results use a base VLM that was pretrained with ground-truth rewards, and the operating point was selected post hoc. The only off-the-shelf evaluation (Fig. S9) reports learning curves and no EPIC or preference metrics. This gap between the claimed contribution and the experimental support is the main reason the paper needs revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Appendix A.3] The main experiments do not test the headline claim that SAFT refines off-the-shelf VLM reward models without ground-truth supervision. The base VLM is pretrained by regressing to ground-truth rewards via Eq. (S7), and the operating point is selected empirically by 'visually checking when the policy showed learning and roughly solved the task.' Consequently, Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 6 isolate the marginal value of SAFT relative to an equally GT-pretrained base, not the value of SAFT on an off-the-shelf VLM. The only off-the-shelf evidence (Fig. S9) contains learning curves only and is described as helping 'sometimes even being the deciding factor'; no EPIC distances or preference-label counts are reported for that regime. This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim. Please add off-the-shelf quantitative evaluations or substantially soften the claim.
  2. [§4.4, Fig. 8] The 'spectrum of base model capabilities' is generated by varying the amount of ground-truth pretraining on the same ViT-B-16 backbone, not by evaluating actual off-the-shelf models of different strengths. The 'critical regime' in which the base VLM fails but SAFT succeeds is therefore an artifact of the controlled pretraining protocol, not a demonstrated property of off-the-shelf VLM reward models. As stated, this does not support the claim that SAFT 'enables off-the-shelf use of smaller models' (Appendix B.1) beyond the single ViT-B-16 case in Figure S9. Please either test the low-capability regime with actual off-the-shelf backbones or explicitly reframe Figure 8 as a controlled interpolation study.
  3. [§3.1.2, Eq. (6)] The RLR loss is defined as a sum over pairs of (||Δ\tilde r|| / ||Δ\tilde s|| - 1)^2, where rewards are normalized by the scalar mean reward and states by the element-wise mean state. The target constant 1 is not a consequence of Lipschitz continuity or of 'proportionality' unless the reward scale is known a priori, and the loss is not invariant to affine re-scaling of either reward or state. Since RLR is the sole auxiliary loss for MountainCar (Table 1), the main MountainCar result depends on this choice. Please justify the normalization and target constant, or define a scale-invariant penalty that actually measures proportionality.
  4. [Table 3, Appendix A.5] The 'binary comparisons saved' figures are computed with a synthetic oracle that has access to ground-truth rewards and provides perfect preferences. Real human feedback is noisy, slow, and inconsistent, so these numbers are upper bounds on the actual reduction in human labeling effort. The main text should state this qualification, not only Appendix A.5.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / §4.2] The abstract says SAFT refines 'imperfect reward signals online without access to ground-truth supervision.' This is true of the fine-tuning phase, but in the main experiments the base model has already been pretrained with ground-truth rewards. Please align the abstract's wording with the controlled setup, or add off-the-shelf experiments.
  2. [§3.1.2, Eq. (6)] The notation uses an element-wise mean state \bar s and divides states element-wise by it. This is undefined if any component of \bar s is zero (as can happen in MountainCar position/velocity). Please add a small epsilon or index-wise notation to clarify.
  3. [Fig. S9] The caption says 'The off-the-shelf ViT-B-16 model fails to converge without SAFT,' but the figure shows all four environments. Please state per-environment convergence outcomes or add a small quantitative summary (e.g., final return means and standard deviations) to the caption.
  4. [§4.2] The phrase 'when the base VLM fails to reach ground-truth performance, SAFT often achieves a higher final reward by improving shaping' appears to rely on the GT-pretrained base. Please clarify that this statement refers to the controlled pretrained regime, not the off-the-shelf regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SAFT's auxiliary losses are evaluated against independent metrics (policy return, EPIC distance), and the ground-truth pretraining is a validation-scope limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

SAFT's two auxiliary objectives (CAL, Eq. 5; RLR, Eq. 6) are self-supervised in the sense that they are computed from the VLM's own reward outputs and state observations. The reported evaluation metrics are not defined in terms of these objectives: policy returns come from environment rollouts, and EPIC distance is measured against ground-truth reward functions (Section 4.3, Appendix A.6). Minimizing CAL/RLR therefore does not by construction guarantee lower EPIC distance or higher returns. The choice of which prior applies (horizontal flips for CartPole, rotations for Reach/ReposeCube, L2 distance for RLR) is informed by known qualitative properties of the true reward, but this is an inductive bias, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly discloses the environment-by-environment selection in Limitations. The main-text evaluation uses a base VLM pretrained with ground-truth reward (Eq. S7) and an operating point selected by visual inspection (Appendix A.3), which weakens the 'no ground-truth supervision' claim for the overall pipeline; however, the SAFT updates themselves use no GT labels, and the measured improvements are marginal changes relative to the equally pretrained base. This is a scope/validation concern, not a circular reduction: there is no equation where an input equals an output by construction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; cited baselines (Rocamonde et al., Sontakke et al., Fu et al.) are external. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method does not introduce new physical or mathematical entities. Its free parameters are mostly environment-specific hyperparameters and the pretraining protocol. The most significant assumption is that the structural priors are known and correctly chosen for each task, which the authors acknowledge as a limitation. The pretraining phase uses ground-truth rewards, so the main evaluation measures marginal utility on an already-initialized model.

free parameters (7)
  • CAL weighting beta = 0.5
    Set to 0.5 for all experiments; ablation in Appendix B.3 shows both terms contribute, but the value is not derived.
  • RLR window size W = 32 (CartPole), 500 (MountainCar)
    Tuned per environment; larger windows improve performance (Appendix B.4), indicating a sensitivity that is not predicted by theory.
  • CAL augmentations = Horizontal flip (CartPole), 8 rotations (Reach), 6 rotations (ReposeCube)
    Hand-chosen per environment to match the known symmetry of the true reward; the paper acknowledges this is environment-specific.
  • Pretraining budget = CartPole 30 rollouts, Reach 1296 updates, MountainCar 100 updates, ReposeCube 4320 updates
    Selected to reach a functional-but-imperfect operating point, as described in Appendix A.3.
  • Operating point = Partially solving base VLM
    Chosen by rolling out the policy from different pretraining checkpoints and visually checking when the policy showed learning (Appendix A.3); this is a post hoc selection.
  • LoRA hyperparameters = rank 2, scaling 32, lr 1e-6
    Standard LoRA settings; not fitted to the central claim but used in all experiments.
  • Ground-truth reward scaling constants (Rmin, Rmax) = Empirical min/max per environment
    Used only in the pretraining phase (Eq. S8), but they are derived from the ground-truth trajectories.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between VLM image and text embeddings is a valid reward signal (Eq. 4)
    Taken from prior work (Rocamonde et al., Sontakke et al.); the paper does not justify this choice but builds on it.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth reward definitions in Table S5 are the true task rewards
    Used for pretraining, EPIC evaluation, and defining the PbRL oracle; no independent evidence is provided that these reward functions are correct.
  • ad hoc to paper L2 distance in state space is a meaningful proxy for reward differences (RLR)
    The paper states 'accurately measuring distances between states remains an open research problem' and adopts L2 for simplicity; this assumption is load-bearing for RLR.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen augmentations are task-preserving
    e.g., horizontal flips in CartPole, rotations in Reach; if an augmentation maps a state outside the task's symmetry group, the loss can corrupt the reward.
  • domain assumption EPIC distance measures alignment in a way relevant to policy behavior
    EPIC is a standard metric from Gleave et al., but the paper's use of a mixed random/optimal observation distribution could bias the measure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing VLM Reward Models Through Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CITUR6V3

@misc{pith2026260803875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing VLM Reward Models Through Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CITUR6V3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03875}
}
read the original abstract

Designing effective reward functions remains a major bottleneck in Reinforcement Learning (RL). Recent work uses large foundation Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as reward models, computing text-observation similarity to bypass manual reward engineering. Although promising, these rewards are often noisy and unreliable, limiting their direct utility during deployment. We present Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning (SAFT), a simple, self-supervised method that refines these imperfect reward signals online without access to ground-truth supervision. SAFT leverages intrinsic structural priors to regularize the VLM's latent space via LoRA adapters. We rigorously evaluate SAFT across a spectrum of base model capabilities to demonstrate its versatility. Our results show that SAFT consistently denoises the reward landscape, yielding faster policy convergence and substantially improved alignment (EPIC distance) relative to the underlying base model, suggesting that failures can often be attributed to structural brittleness rather than semantic misunderstanding. By replacing extensive human preference annotation with structural inductive biases inherent to the task, SAFT offers a scalable path for stabilizing text-conditioned RL and underscores the broader value of incorporating task structure as a general inductive bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning (SAFT) improves VLM reward models for RL by enforcing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure-aware fine-tuning adapts VLM reward models online without any ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contrastive Augmentation Loss, defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reward Lipschitz Regularization (RLR), defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualizations of the four environments. Classic Control Isaac Lab CartPole MountainCar Reach ReposeCube CAL ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ RLR ✓ ✓ ✗ ✗ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Policy learning curves comparing SAFT against the base VLM, goal-baseline regularization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reach reward landscapes predicted by the VLM with and without SAFT, showing improved alignment to the ground truth under SAFT. ideally suited for our analysis. For this analysis, we employ the base and fine-tuned VLM checkpoints from Section 4.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Utility of SAFT in relation to base VLM reward quality, averaged over two seeds. As the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Reward Design with Language Models , author=. The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  2. [2]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Text2Reward: Reward Shaping with Language Models for Reinforcement Learning , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  3. [3]

    2023 , eprint=

    Self-Refined Large Language Model as Automated Reward Function Designer for Deep Reinforcement Learning in Robotics , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

    R*: Efficient Reward Design via Reward Structure Evolution and Parameter Alignment Optimization with Large Language Models , author=. Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

    work page

  5. [5]

    2024 , eprint=

    Eureka: Human-Level Reward Design via Coding Large Language Models , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  6. [6]

    2023 , eprint=

    Vision-Language Models as Success Detectors , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    2022 , eprint=

    Can Foundation Models Perform Zero-Shot Task Specification For Robot Manipulation? , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2022 , url=

    Zero-Shot Reward Specification via Grounded Natural Language , author=. 2022 , url=

    2022

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2024 , eprint=

    RL-VLM-F: Reinforcement Learning from Vision Language Foundation Model Feedback , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  2. [10]

    2024 , eprint=

    FuRL: Visual-Language Models as Fuzzy Rewards for Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  3. [11]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Vision-Language Models are Zero-Shot Reward Models for Reinforcement Learning , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  4. [12]

    2023 , eprint=

    RoboCLIP: One Demonstration is Enough to Learn Robot Policies , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  5. [13]

    2025 , eprint=

    Learning Temporal Distances: Contrastive Successor Features Can Provide a Metric Structure for Decision-Making , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  6. [14]

    2020 , eprint=

    Reinforcement Learning with Goal-Distance Gradient , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  7. [15]

    2018 , eprint=

    Lipschitz Continuity in Model-based Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2018 , eprint=

    2018

  8. [16]

    2020 , eprint=

    Regularisation of Neural Networks by Enforcing Lipschitz Continuity , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  9. [17]

    2019 , eprint=

    Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: analysis and efficient estimation , author=. 2019 , eprint=

    2019

  10. [18]

    2020 , eprint=

    Reinforcement Learning with Augmented Data , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  11. [19]

    2021 , eprint=

    Mastering Visual Continuous Control: Improved Data-Augmented Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  12. [20]

    2020 , eprint=

    Improving Sample Efficiency in Model-Free Reinforcement Learning from Images , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  13. [21]

    2016 , eprint=

    Reinforcement Learning with Unsupervised Auxiliary Tasks , author=. 2016 , eprint=

    2016

  14. [22]

    2017 , eprint=

    Loss is its own Reward: Self-Supervision for Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  15. [23]

    and Chopra, S

    Hadsell, R. and Chopra, S. and LeCun, Y. , booktitle=. Dimensionality Reduction by Learning an Invariant Mapping , year=

  16. [24]

    2020 , eprint=

    A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  17. [25]

    2020 , eprint=

    CURL: Contrastive Unsupervised Representations for Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  18. [26]

    2017 , eprint=

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  19. [27]

    Terry , journal =

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry , journal =. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , urldate =

  20. [28]

    2017 , eprint=

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  21. [29]

    2021 , eprint=

    Quantifying Differences in Reward Functions , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  22. [30]

    2016 , eprint=

    End-to-End Training of Deep Visuomotor Policies , author=. 2016 , eprint=

    2016

  23. [31]

    and Mathieu, Micha

    Vinyals, Oriol and Babuschkin, Igor and Czarnecki, Wojciech M. and Mathieu, Micha. Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning , journal=. 2019 , month=. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1724-z , url=

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2025 , eprint=

    SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Features , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  25. [33]

    Yung-Sung Chuang and Yang Li and Dong Wang and Ching-Feng Yeh and Kehan Lyu and Ramya Raghavendra and James Glass and Lifei Huang and Jason Weston and Luke Zettlemoyer and Xinlei Chen and Zhuang Liu and Saining Xie and Wen-tau Yih and Shang-Wen Li and Hu Xu , year =. Meta. 250...

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    and Harada, Daishi and Russell, Stuart J

    Ng, Andrew Y. and Harada, Daishi and Russell, Stuart J. , title =. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Machine Learning , pages =. 1999 , isbn =

    1999

  27. [35]

    Model-free preference-based reinforcement learning , year =

    Wirth, Christian and F\". Model-free preference-based reinforcement learning , year =. Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages =

  28. [36]

    Advances in Preference-based Reinforcement Learning: A Review , url=

    Abdelkareem, Youssef and Shehata, Shady and Karray, Fakhri , year=. Advances in Preference-based Reinforcement Learning: A Review , url=. doi:10.1109/smc53654.2022.9945333 , booktitle=

    2022

  29. [37]

    2022 , eprint=

    Few-Shot Preference Learning for Human-in-the-Loop RL , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  30. [38]

    2021 , eprint=

    Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  31. [39]

    2021 , eprint=

    LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models , author=. 2021 , eprint=

    2021

  32. [40]

    2016 , eprint=

    OpenAI Gym , author=. 2016 , eprint=

    2016

  33. [41]

    Orbit: A Unified Simulation Framework for Interactive Robot Learning Environments , year=

    Mittal, Mayank and Yu, Calvin and Yu, Qinxi and Liu, Jingzhou and Rudin, Nikita and Hoeller, David and Yuan, Jia Lin and Singh, Ritvik and Guo, Yunrong and Mazhar, Hammad and Mandlekar, Ajay and Babich, Buck and State, Gavriel and Hutter, Marco and Garg, Animesh , journal=. Or...

  34. [42]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.5143773 , url =

    Ilharco, Gabriel and Wortsman, Mitchell and Wightman, Ross and Gordon, Cade and Carlini, Nicholas and Taori, Rohan and Dave, Achal and Shankar, Vaishaal and Namkoong, Hongseok and Miller, John and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh and Farhadi, Ali and Schmidt, Ludwig , title =. doi:10.5281...

    doi

  35. [43]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

    Antonin Raffin and Ashley Hill and Adam Gleave and Anssi Kanervisto and Maximilian Ernestus and Noah Dormann , title =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , year =

  36. [44]

    Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning , pages =

    Learning to Walk in Minutes Using Massively Parallel Deep Reinforcement Learning , author =. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning , pages =. 2022 , volume =

    2022

  37. [45]

    2022 , eprint=

    LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models , author=. 2022 , eprint=

    2022

  38. [46]

    2017 , eprint=

    CAD2RL: Real Single-Image Flight without a Single Real Image , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  39. [47]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Network Randomization: A Simple Technique for Generalization in Deep Reinforcement Learning , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  40. [48]

    2019 , eprint=

    Quantifying Generalization in Reinforcement Learning , author=. 2019 , eprint=

    2019

  41. [49]

    2025 , eprint=

    Hybrid Reinforcement: When Reward Is Sparse, It's Better to Be Dense , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.