LEAF: Latent Exploration Along the Frontier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-supervised goal proposal and reaching is a key component for exploration and efficient policy learning algorithms. Such a self-supervised approach without access to any oracle goal sampling distribution requires deep exploration and commitment so that long horizon plans can be efficiently discovered. In this paper, we propose an exploration framework, which learns a dynamics-aware manifold of reachable states. For a goal, our proposed method deterministically visits a state at the current frontier of reachable states (commit- ment/reaching) and then stochastically explores to reach the goal (exploration). This allocates exploration budget near the frontier of the reachable region instead of its interior. We target the challenging problem of policy learning from initial and goal states specified as images, and do not assume any access to the underlying ground-truth states of the robot and the environment. To keep track of reachable latent states, we propose a distance-conditioned reachability network that is trained to infer whether one state is reachable from another within the specified latent space distance. Given an initial state, we obtain a frontier of reachable states from that state. By incorporating a curriculum for sampling easier goals (closer to the start state) before more difficult goals, we demonstrate that the proposed self-supervised exploration algorithm, superior performance compared to existing baselines on a set of challenging robotic environments. https://sites.google.com/view/leaf-exploration
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".