In this task, you are given the abstract of a research paper. Your task is to generate a summary of this abstract. Your summary should not be very short, but it's better if it's not more than 30 words.

Example Input: Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithms have demonstrated progress in learning to find a goal in challenging environments. As the title of the paper by Mirowski et al. (2016) suggests, one might assume that DRL-based algorithms are able to “learn to navigate” and are thus ready to replace classical mapping and path-planning algorithms, at least in simulated environments. Yet, from experiments and analysis in this earlier work, it is not clear what strategies are used by these algorithms in navigating the mazes and finding the goal. In this paper, we pose and study this underlying question: are DRL algorithms doing some form of mapping and/or path-planning? Our experiments show that the algorithms are not memorizing the maps of mazes at the testing stage but, rather, at the training stage. Hence, the DRL algorithms fall short of qualifying as mapping or path-planning algorithms with any reasonable definition of mapping. We extend the experiments in Mirowski et al. (2016) by separating the set of training and testing maps and by a more ablative coverage of the space of experiments. Our systematic experiments show that the NavA3C-D1-D2-L algorithm, when trained and tested on the same maps, is able to choose the shorter paths to the goal. However, when tested on unseen maps the algorithm utilizes a wall-following strategy to find the goal without doing any mapping or path planning.
Example Output: We quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate deep reinforcement learning based navigation methods under a variety of conditions to answer the question of how close they are to replacing classical path planners and mapping algorithms.

Example Input: Modern neural network architectures use structured linear transformations, such as low-rank matrices, sparse matrices, permutations, and the Fourier transform, to improve inference speed and reduce memory usage compared to general linear maps. However, choosing which of the myriad structured transformations to use (and its associated parameterization) is a laborious task that requires trading off speed, space, and accuracy. We consider a different approach: we introduce a family of matrices called kaleidoscope matrices (K-matrices) that provably capture any structured matrix with near-optimal space (parameter) and time (arithmetic operation) complexity. We empirically validate that K-matrices can be automatically learned within end-to-end pipelines to replace hand-crafted procedures, in order to improve model quality. For example, replacing channel shuffles in ShuffleNet improves classification accuracy on ImageNet by up to 5%. Learnable K-matrices can also simplify hand-engineered pipelines---we replace filter bank feature computation in speech data preprocessing with a kaleidoscope layer, resulting in only 0.4% loss in accuracy on the TIMIT speech recognition task. K-matrices can also capture latent structure in models: for a challenging permuted image classification task, adding a K-matrix to a standard convolutional architecture can enable learning the latent permutation and improve accuracy by over 8 points. We provide a practically efficient implementation of our approach, and use K-matrices in a Transformer network to attain 36% faster end-to-end inference speed on a language translation task.
Example Output: We propose a differentiable family of "kaleidoscope matrices," prove that all structured matrices can be represented in this form, and use them to replace hand-crafted linear maps in deep learning models.

Example Input: The verification of planning domain models is crucial to ensure the safety, integrity and correctness of planning-based automated systems. This task is usually performed using model checking techniques.   However, directly applying model checkers to verify planning domain models can result in false positives, i.e. counterexamples that are unreachable by a sound planner when using the domain under verification during a planning task. In this paper, we discuss the downside of unconstrained planning domain model verification. We then propose a fail-safe practice for designing planning domain models that can inherently guarantee the safety of the produced plans in case of undetected errors in domain models.   In addition, we demonstrate how model checkers, as well as state trajectory constraints planning techniques, should be used to verify planning domain models so that unreachable counterexamples are not returned.
Example Output:
Why and how to constrain planning domain model verification with planning goals to avoid unreachable counterexamples (false positives verification outcomes).