Papers › Aligning Human Intent from Imperfect Demonstrations with Confidence-based Inverse...
Aligning Human Intent from Imperfect Demonstrations with Confidence-based Inverse soft-Q Learning
Xizhou Bu, Wenjuan Li, Zhengxiong Liu, Zhiqiang Ma, Panfeng Huang
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Imitation learning attracts much attention for its ability to allow robots to quickly learn human manipulation skills through demonstrations. However, in the real world, human demonstrations often exhibit random behavior that is not intended by humans. Collecting high-quality human datasets is both challenging and expensive. Consequently, robots need to have the ability to learn behavioral policies that align with human intent from imperfect demonstrations. Previous work uses confidence scores to extract useful information from imperfect demonstrations, which relies on access to ground truth rewards or active human supervision. In this paper, we propose a transition-based method to obtain fine-grained confidence scores for data without the above efforts, which can increase the success rate of the baseline algorithm by 40.3% on average. We develop a generalized confidence-based imitation learning framework for guiding policy learning, called Confidence-based Inverse soft-Q Learning (CIQL), as shown in Fig.1. Based on this, we analyze two ways of processing noise and find that penalization is more aligned with human intent than filtering.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections