When More Planning Hurts: Learned Planners for World Models
Organizations: Independent Researcher
Abstract
On PushT, our fixed action updater (1,505 parameters) solves 8 of 16 scenes reserved from our configuration selection. The comparison planners perform as follows: Selected Adam (7 tasks solved, total planning and encoding time 218.440s), adapted iCEM (2 tasks solved, total planning and encoding time 49.309s), released LePlanner (16 tasks solved, total planning and encoding time 5.652s). The total planning and encoding time for our action updater is 59.079s. Note that our action updater does not satisfy the task-cost criterion we fixed before evaluation. We also conduct another matched experiment where we only replay the first ten commands in each context and then allow the next solve 4, 8 or 12 updates (subsequent solves all get 8 updates). Among all 16 contexts (8 scene clusters), the 3 budgets get 9, 8 and 7 successes, respectively. Interestingly, the extra updates did not rescue any failing task in this experiment. All the changes in success/failure happen in one scene cluster, where we observe that the extra updates decrease the costs of the selected latent world-model trajectories for our updater, while the tasks that used to be successes become failures. The code, weights, evaluators, execution traces and cost accounting accompany the paper.
Figures & tables
| Question | Observed evidence | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|
| Task value | Reserved sixteen-scene confirmation: updater , LePlanner ; updater fails the predefined criterion | Since the controllers vary on more than just the controller architecture, we can’t draw conclusions about the controller architecture independently of population effects |
| Value of effort | Matched : successes; all changes in one of eight clusters | We do not test learned allocation policies. Also, since only one scene shows a change in outcome, conclusions about this are limited |
| Reuse | One frozen head runs across three related predictors and three horizons | While all predictors share the same encoder and controller interface, it’s unknown whether the test scenes appeared in their pretraining data, so it’s difficult to make strong conclusions about transfer |
| Controller | Success | Commands | P+E (s) | Task (s) | Plan traj. | Backwards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adapted iCEM500 | 2/16 | 725 | 49.309 | 54.317 | 73,177 | 0 |
| Adam32, lr 0.1 | 7/16 | 621 | 218.440 | 220.676 | 4,318 | 4,064 |
| Fixed learned8 | 8/16 | 603 | 59.079 | 61.493 | 1,230 | 984 |
| Released LePlanner | 16/16 | 243 | 5.652 | 6.715 | 216 | 0 |
| First updates | Successes | Forwards | Backward/NN calls | P+E sum(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 9/16 | 1146 | 904 | 55.983 |
| 8 | 8/16 | 1290 | 1032 | 62.309 |
| 12 | 7/16 | 1404 | 1136 | 68.310 |
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEM | 119/216 | 1.029 | 2.912 |
| Adam | 132/216 | 6.289 | 8.227 |
| Shared SFT | 140/216 | 5.832 | 7.732 |
| Same head, padded | 140/216 | 5.831 | 7.673 |
| Method/protocol | Success | Commands | Plan traj. | P+E(s) | Task(s) |
| Four development scenes: 10646,2690,6916,2424 | |||||
| Released LePlanner | 4/4 | 60 | 56 | 6.072 | 6.931 |
| Owned learned8 | 2/4 | 154 | 310 | 16.713 | 17.267 |
| Projected Adam | 2/4 | 148 | 420 | 22.073 | 22.576 |
| Bounded one-step CEM | 1/4 | 167 | 2210 | 2.341 | 2.875 |
| Common two-scene subset: 10646,2690 | |||||
| Setting | Success | P+E (s) | Task (s) | Plan traj. | Backwards |
| Calibration: four exposed scenes | |||||
| Adam8, lr 0.1 | 1/4 | 31.187 | 33.402 | 350 | 280 |
| Adam16, lr 0.3 | 1/4 | 30.782 | 31.398 | 630 | 560 |
| Adam32, lr 0.1 | 2/4 | 57.278 | 57.902 | 1,122 | 1,056 |
| iCEM100 | 0/4 | 4.897 | 5.621 | 3,988 | 0 |
| iCEM300 | 0/4 | 5.566 | 6.331 | 11,908 | 0 |
| Method | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost-only A115 | 56/216 | 1.056 | 4.247 |
| Halton–Boltzmann | 116/216 | 0.532 | 2.053 |
| CEM | 106/216 | 0.550 | 1.928 |
| Adam | 122/216 | 5.324 | 6.795 |
| Shared SFT | 129/216 | 5.362 | 6.711 |
| best65 | 114/216 | 0.690 | 3.828 |
| Method | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEM | 106/216 | 1.780 | 3.218 |
| Adam | 122/216 | 1.640 | 2.984 |
| Shared SFT | 128/216 | 3.321 | 4.658 |
| Method | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEM | 119/216 | 1.029 | 2.912 |
| Adam | 132/216 | 6.289 | 8.227 |
| Shared SFT | 140/216 | 5.832 | 7.732 |
| Same head, padded | 140/216 | 5.831 | 7.673 |
| Method | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official H3 | 110/216 | 5.424 | 6.402 |
| Official H5 | 135/216 | 5.324 | 6.377 |
| FT17 H3 | 141/216 | 5.158 | 6.068 |
| FT17 H5 | 127/216 | 5.150 | 6.087 |
| Shared pooled | 140/216 | 5.832 | 7.732 |
| Fixed role | Target goals/48 | Retention goals/48 | Target P+E (s) | Retention P+E (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pooled unchanged | 35 | 34 | 3.773 | 3.752 |
| Official unchanged | 34 | 32 | 3.901 | 3.806 |
| Official to FT17 warm | 35 | 33 | 3.854 | 3.867 |
| FT17 fresh | 35 | 34 | 3.718 | 3.673 |
| Fixed head | Native goals | Plan + encoder (s) | Episode (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared seed13 | 140/216 | 5.832 | 7.732 |
| Shared seed23 | 131/216 | 5.408 | 10.162 |
| Shared seed37 | 141/216 | 5.262 | 9.958 |
| No gradient/scale | 110/216 | 5.589 | 11.120 |
| No cost | 120/216 | 5.437 | 11.049 |
| No budget | 135/216 | 5.351 | 10.441 |
| Actual frozen policy | ID goals/16 | ID planning (s) | OOD goals/20 | OOD planning (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed8 | 9 | 50.158 | 8 | 94.635 |
| Threshold4/8 | 9 | 46.518 | 8 | 95.835 |
| TRAIN-marginal random | 9 | 31.847 | 5 | 67.341 |
| Failed ridge gate | 4 | 17.373 | 5 | 26.596 |
| Fixed8 + ignored gate | 9 | 46.519 | 8 | 94.213 |
| Native method | Decisions | Mean (s) | p50 (s) | p95 (s) | Maximum (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEM | 1666 | 0.133 | 0.075 | 0.132 | 15.551 |
| Adam | 1574 | 0.863 | 0.770 | 1.143 | 41.354 |
| Shared SFT | 1547 | 0.814 | 0.786 | 1.177 | 10.221 |
| Same head, padded | 1547 | 0.814 | 0.778 | 1.199 | 14.763 |
| Compiled method | Mean (s) | p50 (s) | p95 (s) | Maximum (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEM | 1.780 | 0.391 | 2.171 | 123.361 |
| Adam | 1.640 | 1.122 | 1.900 | 82.226 |
| Shared SFT | 3.321 | 1.234 | 1.996 | 269.791 |
| Controller | Success | Commands | P+E (s) | Task + recorded artifacts (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adapted iCEM500 | 2/16 | 725 | 25.525 | 30.115 |
| Adam32, lr 0.1 | 7/16 | 621 | 207.673 | 211.419 |
| Fixed learned8 | 8/16 | 602 | 57.649 | 61.385 |
| Released LePlanner | 16/16 | 243 | 6.008 | 7.679 |
World Model-Based Planning
World model-based planning uses models of how environments change to compare imagined actions and choose goal-directed behavior.
See all 263 papers