Daily Papers

Learning task progress from robot demonstrations provides a practical way to construct dense shaping rewards for robotic reinforcement learning. A common approach uses normalized demonstration time as progress labels, implicitly assuming monotonically increasing task progress. During policy exploration, however, actual task progress can stall or even regress. Such models may mistake regressions for progress, assigning positive shaping rewards to actions that cause progress loss. Real suboptimal and failed executions offer corrective experience, but assigning absolute progress values to their states is difficult. Our key observation is that stalls, regressions, and recoveries establish local relative progress relations even when absolute progress is unknown. We introduce Event2Reward, which uses normalized temporal labels to anchor the progress scale and these within-trajectory relations to constrain local changes, combining absolute and relative progress supervision. Its progress predictions serve as potentials for reward shaping. We curate an event-annotated dataset from approximately 100K raw real-robot execution records, covering successful, suboptimal, and failed executions, without requiring framewise absolute progress labels. Under the same training budgets, Event2Reward improves average policy success by 18.16 percentage points over a baseline using only sparse task rewards across 40 tasks in four LIBERO suites. On real robots, average success after 30 minutes of wall-clock training reaches 60.0% on three precise insertion tasks and 90.0% on three object manipulation tasks, exceeding the sparse-reward baseline under the same budget by 36.7 and 23.3 percentage points, respectively. Ablation studies further show that absolute progress supervision and relative progress relations are complementary, with joint supervision yielding better downstream policy learning.

When deploying a single predictor across multiple subpopulations, we propose a fundamentally different approach: interpreting group fairness as a bargaining problem among subpopulations. This game-theoretic perspective reveals that existing robust optimization methods such as minimizing worst-group loss or regret correspond to classical bargaining solutions and embody different fairness principles. We propose relative improvement, the ratio of actual risk reduction to potential reduction from a baseline predictor, which recovers the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution. Unlike absolute-scale methods that may not be comparable when groups have different potential predictability, relative improvement provides axiomatic justification including scale invariance and individual monotonicity. We establish finite-sample convergence guarantees under mild conditions.

Understanding spatial relations is essential for intelligent agents to act and communicate in the physical world. Relative directions are spatial relations that describe the relative positions of target objects with regard to the intrinsic orientation of reference objects. Grounding relative directions is more difficult than grounding absolute directions because it not only requires a model to detect objects in the image and to identify spatial relation based on this information, but it also needs to recognize the orientation of objects and integrate this information into the reasoning process. We investigate the challenging problem of grounding relative directions with end-to-end neural networks. To this end, we provide GRiD-3D, a novel dataset that features relative directions and complements existing visual question answering (VQA) datasets, such as CLEVR, that involve only absolute directions. We also provide baselines for the dataset with two established end-to-end VQA models. Experimental evaluations show that answering questions on relative directions is feasible when questions in the dataset simulate the necessary subtasks for grounding relative directions. We discover that those subtasks are learned in an order that reflects the steps of an intuitive pipeline for processing relative directions.

Long-horizon agentic tasks require an agent to modify an environment through a sequence of tool calls, with success determined by the final state. The standard recipe assigns a single outcome reward at the end and compares trajectories sampled for the same task. As a result, a group with no successful trajectory yields no training signal, failed attempts cannot be told apart by how close they came to completion, and turns that advance the task receive the same credit as turns that only query the environment. Prior work refines the unit of comparison from the trajectory to the step, or trains a reward model to supply intermediate signal: the former still derives its signal from final success alone, and the latter estimates it with a model. We observe that the acceptance checks that decide success can also be run on intermediate states, so progress is as verifiable as the outcome. We propose ProCredit, which turns this verified progress into credit: it reruns the acceptance checks after each turn, rewards the turn by its change in progress, and uses these rewards to assign credit both across attempts at the same task and across the turns within a trajectory. Starting from Qwen3.5 base models at three scales on AppWorld, ProCredit outperforms outcome-reward baselines and progress-based baselines in task completion rate at every scale on both test sets, exceeding the strongest outcome-reward baseline by 4.1 percentage points at 4B, and results in a second environment show the same direction of improvement. Ablations show that adding the final progress to the trajectory score alone does not improve performance: the gain comes from crediting progress to the turn where it occurs.

Statistical inference for non-stationary data is hindered by the failure of classical central limit theorems (CLTs), not least because there is no fixed Gaussian limit to converge to. To resolve this, we introduce relative weak convergence, an extension of weak convergence that compares a statistic or process to a sequence of evolving processes. Relative weak convergence retains the essential consequences of classical weak convergence and coincides with it under stationarity. Crucially, it applies in general non-stationary settings where classical weak convergence fails. We establish concrete relative CLTs for random vectors and empirical processes, along with sequential, weighted, and bootstrap variants, that parallel the state-of-the-art in stationary settings. Our framework and results offer simple, plug-in replacements for classical CLTs whenever stationarity is untenable, as illustrated by applications in nonparametric trend estimation and hypothesis testing.

Robotic learning takes place in dynamic environments with large behavior spaces. A terminal success signal only tells the robot whether the task is completed. It does not explain whether the current behavior is making progress, remaining unchanged, or undoing earlier progress. For this reason, recent studies have increasingly explored progress rewards that provide feedback during task execution. However, the current literature lacks a shared framework. Existing methods use different observations, goal specifications, output signals, supervision sources, and evaluation protocols. This makes it difficult to compare them and understand what their results actually validate. In this survey, we provide a unified view of progress reward modeling for robotic learning. We organize the field in three connected steps. We first study the interface of a progress model. This defines the problem from the outside by asking what information the model receives and what form of progress signal it produces. We then move inside the model and study the methods used to construct this signal. This reveals the different assumptions and mechanisms behind progress estimation and reward generation. Finally, we examine the data and benchmarks that support these methods. This shows how progress supervision is obtained and what different evaluations actually measure. Together, these three perspectives connect what a progress model is, how it is built, and how its quality is validated. We further summarize the main limitations of current approaches and discuss future research directions.

We study long-run progress in artificial intelligence in a quantitative way. Many measures, including traditional ones such as patents and publications, machine learning benchmarks, and a new Aggregate State of the Art in ML (or ASOTA) Index we have constructed from these, show exponential growth at roughly constant rates over long periods. Production of patents and publications doubles every ten years, by contrast with the growth of computing resources driven by Moore's Law, roughly a doubling every two years. We argue that the input of AI researchers is also crucial and its contribution can be objectively estimated. Consequently, we give a simple argument that explains the 5:1 relation between these two rates. We then discuss the application of this argument to different output measures and compare our analyses with predictions based on machine learning scaling laws proposed in existing literature. Our quantitative framework facilitates understanding, predicting, and modulating the development of these important technologies.

As economics scales, a key bottleneck is representing what papers claim in a comparable, aggregable form. We introduce evidence-annotated claim graphs that map each paper into a directed network of standardized economic concepts (nodes) and stated relationships (edges), with each edge labeled by evidentiary basis, including whether it is supported by causal inference designs or by non-causal evidence. Using a structured multi-stage AI workflow, we construct claim graphs for 44,852 economics papers from 1980-2023. The share of causal edges rises from 7.7% in 1990 to 31.7% in 2020. Measures of causal narrative structure and causal novelty are positively associated with top-five publication and long-run citations, whereas non-causal counterparts are weakly related or negative.