CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 86Advanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchTime Series Analysis and ForecastingData Mining and Machine Learning Applications

Behavior Transformers: Cloning k modes with one stone

Open access
Shafiullah, Nur Muhammad Mahi, Cui, Zichen Jeff, Altanzaya, Ariuntuya, Pinto, Lerrel·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2206.11251arXiv 2206.11251
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While behavior learning has made impressive progress in recent times, it lags behind computer vision and natural language processing due to its inability to leverage large, human-generated datasets. Human behaviors have wide variance, multiple modes, and human demonstrations typically do not come with reward labels. These properties limit the applicability of current methods in Offline RL and Behavioral Cloning to learn from large, pre-collected datasets. In this work, we present Behavior Transformer (BeT), a new technique to model unlabeled demonstration data with multiple modes. BeT retrofits standard transformer architectures with action discretization coupled with a multi-task action correction inspired by offset prediction in object detection. This allows us to leverage the multi-modal modeling ability of modern transformers to predict multi-modal continuous actions. We experimentally evaluate BeT on a variety of robotic manipulation and self-driving behavior datasets. We show that BeT significantly improves over prior state-of-the-art work on solving demonstrated tasks while capturing the major modes present in the pre-collected datasets. Finally, through an extensive ablation study, we analyze the importance of every crucial component in BeT. Videos of behavior generated by BeT are available at https://notmahi.github.io/bet

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2206.11251

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BET fails to commit to a single mode due to its lack of temporal action consistency.

    “while BET [42] fails to commit to a single mode due to its lack of temporal action consistency.”

    From Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion (2023) · cites this paper as [42]

    Section 3.3 (p. 6) says BeT learns to commit to a single mode over a long period in Block push; it is other methods that keep switching between modes. Section 3.4 (p. 8) also reports that BeT uses historical context to better capture context-dependent behavior, contrary to the claimed lack of temporal consistency. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • BET fails to commit to a single mode due to its lack of temporal action consistency.

    “In contrast, both LSTM-GMM Mandlekar et al. (2021) and IBC Florence et al. (2021) are biased toward one mode, while BET Shafiullah et al. (2022) fails to commit to a single mode due to its lack of temporal action consistency.”

    From Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion (2023) · cites this paper as Shafiullah et al. (2022)

    Section 3.3 (p. 6) says BeT can commit to a single mode over a long period in the Block push task; it describes switching between modes as a failure of other methods, not BeT. Section 3.4 (p. 8) also says BeT generates longer task strings while maintaining diversity. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the Push-T short-horizon multimodality case study, LSTM-GMM and IBC exhibit bias toward one side and BET cannot commit to one mode.

    “Diffusion Policy learns to approach the contact point equally likely from left or right, while LSTM-GMM [29] and IBC [12] exhibit bias toward one side and BET [42] cannot commit to one mode.”

    From Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion (2023) · cites this paper as [42]

    The cited BeT paper describes a different, two-block pushing environment in Appendix A (pp. 16–17), not the Push-T contact-point case study. Section 3.3 (p. 6) says BeT can commit to a mode in that long-horizon task, but this does not establish how BeT behaves in Push-T. A search for Push-T and its short-horizon contact-point behavior found no passage addressing the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. [1][1] I. Akkaya, M. Andrychowicz, M. Chociej, M. Litwin, B. McGrew, A. Petron, A. Paino, M. Plappert, G. Powell, R. Ribas, et al. Solving rubik's cube with a robot hand. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07113 , 2019. - · arXiv
  2. [2][2] B. D. Argall, S. Chernova, M. Veloso, and B. Browning. A survey of robot learning from demonstration. Robotics and autonomous systems , 57(5):469-483, 2009. -
  3. [3][3] S. P. Arunachalam, S. Silwal, B. Evans, and L. Pinto. Dexterous imitation made easy: A learningbased framework for efficient dexterous manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13251 , 2022. - · arXiv
  4. [4][4] C. G. Atkeson, A. W. Moore, and S. Schaal. Locally weighted learning. Lazy learning , pages 11-73, 1997. -
  5. [5][5] S. Bai, J. Z. Kolter, and V. Koltun. An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01271 , 2018. - · arXiv
  6. [6][6] A. Bardes, J. Ponce, and Y. LeCun. Vicreg: Variance-invariance-covariance regularization for self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04906 , 2021. - · arXiv
  7. [9][9] M. Bojarski, D. Del Testa, D. Dworakowski, B. Firner, B. Flepp, P. Goyal, L. D. Jackel, M. Monfort, U. Muller, J. Zhang, et al. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 , 2016. - · arXiv
  8. [10][10] S. R. Bowman, G. Angeli, C. Potts, and C. D. Manning. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05326 , 2015. - · arXiv
  9. [11][11] T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 , 2020. - · arXiv
  10. [12][12] L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. CoRR , abs/2106.01345, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.01345 . - · arXiv
  11. [13][13] H. M. Clever, A. Handa, H. Mazhar, K. Parker, O. Shapira, Q. Wan, Y. Narang, I. Akinola, M. Cakmak, and D. Fox. Assistive tele-op: Leveraging transformers to collect robotic task demonstrations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05129 , 2021. - · arXiv
  12. [14][14] F. Codevilla, E. Santana, A. M. López, and A. Gaidon. Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9329-9338, 2019. -
  13. [16][16] S. Dasari and A. Gupta. Transformers for one-shot visual imitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.05970 , 2020. - · arXiv
  14. [17][17] Y. N. Dauphin, A. Fan, M. Auli, and D. Grangier. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 933-941. PMLR, 2017. -
  15. [18][18] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 248-255, 2009. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848. - · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19][19] 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 , pages 4171-4186, 2018. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. - · DOI · Paper page
  17. [20][20] L. Dinh, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Bengio. Density estimation using real nvp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08803 , 2016. - · arXiv
  18. [21][21] A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V. Koltun. Carla: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning , pages 1-16. PMLR, 2017. -
  19. [22][22] A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020. - · arXiv
  20. [23][23] Y. Duan, X. Chen, R. Houthooft, J. Schulman, and P. Abbeel. Benchmarking deep reinforcement learning for continuous control. In International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 48 of JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings , pages 1329-1338. JMLR.org, 2016. -
  21. [24][24] P. Florence, L. Manuelli, and R. Tedrake. Self-supervised correspondence in visuomotor policy learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 5(2):492-499, 2019. -
  22. [25][25] P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson. Implicit behavioral cloning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00137 , 2021. - · arXiv
  23. [26][26] J. Fu, A. Kumar, O. Nachum, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. D4rl: Datasets for deep data-driven reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07219 , 2020. - · arXiv
  24. [27][27] S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. In International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 1587-1596. PMLR, PMLR, 2018. -
  25. [29][29] F. A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Cummins. Learning to forget: Continual prediction with lstm. Neural computation , 12(10):2451-2471, 2000. -
  26. [30][30] R. Girshick. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 1440-1448, 2015. -
  27. [31][31] K. Grauman, A. Westbury, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, A. Furnari, R. Girdhar, J. Hamburger, H. Jiang, M. Liu, X. Liu, et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07058 , 3, 2021. - · arXiv
  28. [32][32] J.-B. Grill, F. Strub, F. Altché, C. Tallec, P. H. Richemond, E. Buchatskaya, C. Doersch, B. A. Pires, Z. D. Guo, M. G. Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent: A new approach to self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07733 , 2020. - · arXiv
  29. [33][33] C. Gulcehre, Z. Wang, A. Novikov, T. Le Paine, S. Gomez Colmenarejo, K. Zolna, R. Agarwal, J. Merel, D. Mankowitz, C. Paduraru, et al. Rl unplugged: Benchmarks for offline reinforcement learning. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv-2006, 2020. -
  30. [34][34] A. Gupta, V. Kumar, C. Lynch, S. Levine, and K. Hausman. Relay policy learning: Solving long-horizon tasks via imitation and reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.11956 , 2019. - · arXiv
  31. [35][35] K. Hausman, Y. Chebotar, S. Schaal, G. Sukhatme, and J. J. Lim. Multi-modal imitation learning from unstructured demonstrations using generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. -
  32. [36][36] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 770-778, 2016. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90. - · DOI · Paper page
  33. [37][37] J. Ho and S. Ermon. Generative adversarial imitation learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems , volume 29, pages 4565-4573, 2016. -
  34. [38][38] B. Ivanovic, E. Schmerling, K. Leung, and M. Pavone. Generative modeling of multimodal multi-human behavior. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 3088-3095. IEEE, 2018. -
  35. [39][39] M. Janner, Q. Li, and S. Levine. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34, 2021. -
  36. [42][42] D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 , 2013. - · arXiv
  37. [43][43] I. Kostrikov, J. Tompson, R. Fergus, and O. Nachum. Offline reinforcement learning with fisher divergence critic regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08050 , 2021. - · arXiv
  38. [44][44] A. Kumar, J. Fu, M. Soh, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. Stabilizing off-policy q-learning via bootstrapping error reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019. -
  39. [45][45] A. Kumar, A. Zhou, G. Tucker, and S. Levine. Conservative q-learning for offline reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:1179-1191, 2020. -
  40. [46][46] N. Lee and K. M. Kitani. Predicting wide receiver trajectories in american football. In 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 1-9. IEEE, 2016. -
  41. [47][47] S. Levine, A. Kumar, G. Tucker, and J. Fu. Offline reinforcement learning: Tutorial, review, and perspectives on open problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.01643 , 2020. - · arXiv
  42. [48][48] T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European conference on computer vision , pages 740-755. Springer, 2014. -
  43. [49][49] T.-Y. Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2980-2988, 2017. -
  44. [50][50] M. Liu, T. He, M. Xu, and W. Zhang. Energy-based imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09395 , 33, 2020. - · arXiv
  45. [51][51] Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, and X. Tang. Large-scale celebfaces attributes (celeba) dataset. Retrieved August , 15(2018):11, 2018. -
  46. [52][52] C. Lynch, M. Khansari, T. Xiao, V. Kumar, J. Tompson, S. Levine, and P. Sermanet. Learning latent plans from play. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 1113-1132. PMLR, 2020. -
  47. [53][53] J. MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability , volume 1, pages 281-297. Oakland, CA, USA, 1967. -
  48. [54][54] Z. Mandi, F. Liu, K. Lee, and P. Abbeel. Towards more generalizable one-shot visual imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13423 , 2021. - · arXiv
  49. [55][55] A. Mandlekar, Y. Zhu, A. Garg, J. Booher, M. Spero, A. Tung, J. Gao, J. Emmons, A. Gupta, E. Orbay, et al. Roboturk: A crowdsourcing platform for robotic skill learning through imitation. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 879-893. PMLR, 2018. -
  50. [56][56] A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y. Zhu, and R. Martín-Martín. What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. In arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03298 , 2021. - · arXiv
  51. [57][57] V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski, et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature , 518(7540):529-533, 2015. -
  52. [58][58] O. Nachum and M. Yang. Provable representation learning for imitation with contrastive fourier features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12272 , 2021. - · arXiv
  53. [59][59] A. Y. Ng, S. J. Russell, et al. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Icml , volume 1, pages 663-670, 2000. -
  54. [60][60] A. v. d. Oord, S. Dieleman, H. Zen, K. Simonyan, O. Vinyals, A. Graves, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Senior, and K. Kavukcuoglu. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499 , 2016. - · arXiv
  55. [61][61] T. Osa, J. Pajarinen, G. Neumann, J. A. Bagnell, P. Abbeel, and J. Peters. An algorithmic perspective on imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06711 , 2018. - · arXiv
  56. [62][62] J. Pari, N. Muhammad, S. P. Arunachalam, L. Pinto, et al. The surprising effectiveness of representation learning for visual imitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01511 , 2021. - · arXiv
  57. [63][63] X. B. Peng, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and M. van de Panne. Deepmimic: Example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. ACMTransactions on Graphics (TOG) , 37(4):1-14, 2018. -
  58. [64][64] X. B. Peng, Z. Ma, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and A. Kanazawa. Amp: Adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 40(4):1-20, 2021. -
  59. [65][65] K. Pertsch, Y. Lee, and J. J. Lim. Accelerating reinforcement learning with learned skill priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11944 , 2020. - · arXiv
  60. [66][66] K. Pertsch, Y. Lee, and J. J. Lim. Accelerating reinforcement learning with learned skill priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11944 , 2020. - · arXiv
  61. [67][67] D. A. Pomerleau. Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network. Advances in neural information processing systems , 1, 1988. -
  62. [68][68] D. A. Pomerleau. Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 305-313, 1989. -
  63. [69][69] R. Rahmatizadeh, P. Abolghasemi, L. Bölöni, and S. Levine. Vision-based multi-task manipulation for inexpensive robots using end-to-end learning from demonstration. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 3758-3765. IEEE, 2018. -
  64. [70][70] P. Rajpurkar, J. Zhang, K. Lopyrev, and P. Liang. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250 , 2016. - · arXiv
  65. [71][71] C. E. Rasmussen and H. Nickisch. Gaussian processes for machine learning (gpml) toolbox. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:3011-3015, 2010. -
  66. [72][72] L. Reynolds and K. McDonell. Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1-7, 2021. -
  67. [73][73] S. Ross, G. Gordan, and A. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.0686 , 2010. - · arXiv
  68. [74][74] S. Russell. Learning agents for uncertain environments. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on Computational learning theory , pages 101-103, 1998. -
  69. [75][75] S. Schaal. Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots? Trends in cognitive sciences , 3 (6):233-242, 1999. -
  70. [76][76] A. Singh, H. Liu, G. Zhou, A. Yu, N. Rhinehart, and S. Levine. Parrot: Data-driven behavioral priors for reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10024 , 2020. - · arXiv
  71. [77][77] F. Torabi, G. Warnell, and P. Stone. Behavioral cloning from observation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01954 , 2018. - · arXiv
  72. [78][78] A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA , pages 5998-6008, 2017. -
  73. [79][79] J. M. Wang, D. J. Fleet, and A. Hertzmann. Gaussian process dynamical models for human motion. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 30(2):283-298, 2007. -
  74. [80][80] Y. Wu, G. Tucker, and O. Nachum. Behavior regularized offline reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.11361 , 2019. - · arXiv
  75. [81][81] D. Yarats, R. Fergus, A. Lazaric, and L. Pinto. Mastering visual continuous control: Improved data-augmented reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09645 , 2021. - · arXiv
  76. [82][82] S. Young, J. Pari, P. Abbeel, and L. Pinto. Playful interactions for representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09046 , 2021. - · arXiv
  77. [83][83] A. Zeng, P. Florence, J. Tompson, S. Welker, J. Chien, M. Attarian, T. Armstrong, I. Krasin, D. Duong, V. Sindhwani, et al. Transporter networks: Rearranging the visual world for robotic manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning , 2020. -
  78. [84][84] T. Zhang, Z. McCarthy, O. Jow, D. Lee, X. Chen, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel. Deep imitation learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation. In ICRA , pages 5628-5635. IEEE, 2018. -
  79. [85][85] Y. Zhu, Z. Wang, J. Merel, A. Rusu, T. Erez, S. Cabi, S. Tunyasuvunakool, J. Kramár, R. Hadsell, N. de Freitas, et al. Reinforcement and imitation learning for diverse visuomotor skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09564 , 2018. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shafiullah, N. M. M., Cui, Z. J., Altanzaya, A., & Pinto, L.
ORCID
Shafiullah, Nur Muhammad Mahi
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
22955-22968
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.11251
arXiv
2206.11251
OpenAlex
W7133205485
Cited by
86
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 7
FWCI
7.46
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Clustering Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
behavior cloning, k-modes, reinforcement learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review