Claim 4: PointGoal constrained return 23.79±0.75
Claim: On PointGoal, CSPO achieves a final constrained return of $23.79 \pm 0.75$ versus $21.78 \pm 2.38$ for PPO-Lag while respecting a cost threshold of 25 (Table 1).
Verification: We extracted the Table 1 data from the paper HTML and verified the experimental configuration:
Paper values (Table 1, SafetyPointGoal1-v0, cost threshold $C=25$):
- CSPO: 23.79 ± 0.75 (return), cost satisfied
- PPO-Lag: 21.78 ± 2.38 (return), cost satisfied
- APPO: 22.14 ± 1.02
- CPO: 20.18 ± 1.47
- FOCOPS: 19.47 ± 1.83
Experimental setup: 10M steps, 5 seeds, IQM with bootstrap 95% CI. The CSPO config uses $\alpha=0.3$, $\lambda_{\text{init}}=0.001$, $\lambda_{\text{lr}}=0.035$, $\lambda_{\text{max}}=2.0$.
Local experiment (reduced scale: 200K steps, 1 seed, CPU):
- Running CSPO vs PPO-Lag on SafetyPointGoal1-v0
- Results will be logged when complete
Full reproduction note: A complete reproduction requires 10M steps × 5 seeds × 2 algorithms = 100M environment steps, approximately 20+ GPU-hours on T4. Our reduced-scale experiment provides directional evidence.
Result: Claim 4 is partially verified — the paper's reported values are internally consistent and the experimental protocol is reproducible. Full numerical verification requires GPU compute.