In reinforcement learning (RL), temporal reasoning is essential for estimating the density of future outcomes under a policy's occupancy measure. While self-predictive representations have been a dominant paradigm for occupancy density estimation, we find that they yield surprisingly poor estimates. On the other hand, generative occupancy models can produce remarkably accurate samples from the occupancy measure. Yet, they cannot easily recover occupancy densities, limiting their use for control despite their expressivity. In this paper, we propose Geometric Time Score Estimators (GTSE), a framework that bridges the two paradigms by learning occupancy density estimators along probability paths. We analyze how GTSE implicitly induces better occupancy estimators through improved representation learning and show how to directly extract self-predictive representations from this framework. Through experiments across several locomotion and manipulation tasks, we show that GTSE improves performance over state-of-the-art methods by 2× to 6× in goal-conditioned RL settings, and that the representations learned using our framework transfer effectively to downstream RL tasks. Website: https://aravindvenu7.github.io/website/gtse/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The time score function, ∂klogpk(g+∣s,a) , captures the instantaneous rate of change of the log-density of the occupancy measure along a probability path. Integrating it induces accurate occupancy density estimates useful for downstream control applications.
Figure 2: Normalized rank of estimated occupancy density vs. the normalized rank of ground-truth logdπD over 50 goals and 300 state-action pairs per goal on a 5-step toy MDP (colored by distance of state from origin). GTSE variants are introduced in Secs. 5 – 6 .
CRL
FB
TD-JEPA
BYOL- γ
Dual GR
TMD
TD-flows
GTSE- b0
GTSE- b2
GTSE- b10
GTSE- b
GTSE- r
GTSE
ρ (near)
0.56
0.11
0.25
0.33
−0.07
0.56
0.00
0.56
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.63
ρ (far)
0.14
0.00
0.08
0.16
−0.09
0.30
0.05
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.55
Success rate
3±6
0±0
0±0
0±0
0±0
0±0
0±0
12±5
21±10
19±9
25±4
25±2
38±4
Table 1: Spearman rank correlation ρ with ground-truth logdπD for nearby and far-away goals along with overall average success rate (%) across the 5 test-time goals on pointmaze-large-diverse over 4 seeds. We report the 95% bootstrapped C.I. half-width after the ± sign. GTSE variants are introduced in Secs. 5 – 6 .
Dataset
GCBC
CRL
FB
TD-JEPA
BYOL- γ
Dual GR
TMD
SMORE
TD-flows
NF
GTSE- r
GTSE
scene-play
20±4
25±5
6±2
31±4
17±2
19±15
7±2
13±4
35±4
9±3
60±5
69±6
scene-noisy
10±1
7±3
2±1
24±3
9±3
12±7
7±1
3±2
19±4
5±2
37±4
55±6
puzzle-4x4-play
1±1
2±1
22±8
36±3
2±1
17±6
1±1
0±1
4±2
1±1
26±6
40±4
puzzle-4x4-noisy
1±0
0±0
6±2
9±3
0±0
2±3
0±0
0±0
1±0
1±0
9±2
22±2
cube-triple-play
5±2
2±1
1±0
1±1
0±1
13±2
1±1
2±3
16±3
0±0
7±1
18±1
cube-triple-noisy
2±1
1±1
0±1
0±0
0±1
4±2
0±0
1±1
8±2
1±1
4±1
8±1
Table 2: GCRL tasks: Overall average success rate (%) across the 5 test-time goals over 8 seeds per task per algorithm. We report the 95% bootstrapped C.I. half-width after the ± sign.
Task
CRL
FB
TD-JEPA
BYOL- γ
Dual GR
TMD
Vanilla FQL
GTSE- r
task 1
67 ± 6
58 ± 33
98 ± 5
51 ± 27
37 ± 7
1 ± 2
100 ± 0
100 ± 1
task 2
14 ± 12
17 ± 19
32 ± 22
8 ± 8
4 ± 3
0 ± 0
83 ± 23
81 ± 12
task 3
27 ± 13
1 ± 2
85 ± 11
10 ± 6
11 ± 9
0 ± 0
99 ± 3
94 ± 5
task 4
10 ± 5
0 ± 0
18 ± 14
10 ± 4
7 ± 4
0 ± 0
9 ± 7
36 ± 18
task 5
2 ± 2
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
4 ± 7
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
0 ± 0
Mean
24.0
15.2
46.6
15.8
12.6
0.2
58.2
62.2
Table 3: Reward-based RL tasks with frozen representation encoders on scene-play . We report success rate (%) with the 95% bootstrapped C.I. half-width after the ± sign, averaged over 4 seeds.
Figure 3: Effect of Kmax . GTSE performance over varying Kmax , the upper limit of the time-score integral, on puzzle-4x4-play (left) and antmaze-large-navigate (right). Lines show the mean over 8 seeds; shaded regions show 95% C.I.
Figure 4: Effect of N . GTSE performance over varying N , time-score evaluations during inference, on puzzle-4x4-play (left) and antmaze-large-navigate (right). Lines show the mean over 8 seeds; shaded regions show 95% C.I.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Training Iterations
toy MDP
250k
puzzle-4x4-play
1M
scene-play
1M
cube-triple-play
3M
antmaze-large-navigate
3M
pointmaze-large-diverse
3M
Appendix
Table 4: Training iterations per task. All algorithms are trained for the same number of iterations.
Hyperparameter
Value
Optimizer
Adam ( Kingma and Ba, 2014 )
Learning rate
0.0003
Batch size
1024
Architecture
MLP
MLP size
{512, 512, 512, 512}
Representation dimensions (GCRL expts)
512
Appendix
Table 5: Common hyperparameters.
Hyperparameter
Value
Nonlinearity
ELU ( Clevert et al., 2015 ) for GTSE, GELU for GTSE- r
Discount factor γ
0.995 for cube-triple and cube-triple-noisy, 0.99 otherwise
Time embedding size
64 (toy-MDP and pointmaze) & 96 (other experiments)
Goal noise std.
0.0001
Appendix
Table 6: GTSE hyperparameters.
Dataset
τ (target update rate)
GTSE ( pD )
N (Eq. 6 )
policy ( pcurD,ptrajD,prandD )
Kmax
toy MDP
0.005
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 1, 0)
0.9999
puzzle-4x4-play
0.005
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 1, 0)
0.99
puzzle-4x4-noisy
0.005
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 1, 0)
0.95
cube-triple-play
0.003
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 0.5, 0.5)
0.925
cube-triple-noisy
0.005
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 0.5, 0.5)
0.925
scene-play
0.003
(0, 1, 0)
30
(0, 0.5, 0.5)
0.925
Appendix
Table 7: Task-specific hyperparameters for GTSE training
CRL
FB
TD-JEPA
BYOL- γ
Dual GR
TMD
SMORE
TD-flows
NF
GTSE- b
GTSE- r
GTSE
Training (ms) ↓
3.12
3.66
5.12
3.77
4.51
44.55
2.53
2.26
4.62
4.49
3.59
2.17
Inference (ms) ↓
0.24
0.29
0.45
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.19
0.70
0.64
0.55
0.36
0.31
Appendix
Table 8: Wall-clock runtime comparison reported in milliseconds.
Figure 5: Difference in time score per dimension, averaged over k , between the in-trajectory goal and randomly sampled goals on antmaze-large-navigate .
Dataset
GTSE- b0
GTSE- b2
GTSE- b10
GTSE-b
puzzle-4x4-play
36±3
30±2
29±7
30±3
antmaze-large-navigate
63±5
77±4
77±3
77±1
Appendix
Table 9: Performance comparison of GTSE- bL and GTSE- b on OGBench GCRL tasks. While performance improves with truncation order on antmaze , it degrades with truncation order on puzzle .
The temporal lag between actions and their long-term consequences makes credit assignment a challenge when learning goal-directed behaviors from data. Generative world models capture the distribution of future states an agent may visit, indicating that they have captured temporal information. How can that temporal information be extracted to perform credit assignment? In this paper, we formalize how the temporal information stored in world models encodes the underlying geometry of the world. Leveraging optimal transport, we extract this geometry from a learned model of the occupancy measure into a reward function that captures goal-reaching information. Our resulting method, Occupancy Reward Shaping, largely mitigates the problem of credit assignment in sparse reward settings. ORS provably does not alter the optimal policy, yet empirically improves performance by 2.2x across 13 diverse long-horizon locomotion and manipulation tasks. Moreover, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ORS in the real world for controlling nuclear fusion on 3 Tokamak control tasks. Code: https://github.com/aravindvenu7/occupancy_reward_shaping; Website: https://aravindvenu7.github.io/website/ors/
Aravind Venugopal, Jiayu Chen, Xudong Wu +3
Carnegie Mellon University · The University of Hong Kong · INFIFORCE Intelligent Technology +1
Future 3D semantic occupancy forecasting and motion planning are central to autonomous driving, as they require models to reason about how surrounding scenes evolve and how the ego vehicle should act. Existing occupancy world models commonly discretize scenes into latent embeddings, volumetric features, or quantized tokens, and forecast future states through fixed-step autoregressive generation. This limits temporal flexibility, obscures scene evolution, accumulates errors over long horizons, and poorly matches the continuous-time dynamics of real driving scenes. We propose GEM, a Gaussian Evolution Model for non-autoregressive occupancy world modeling, where driving scenes are represented as explicit continuous 4D Gaussian primitives with learned dynamics. Instead of rolling out future occupancy states step by step, GEM directly queries the Gaussian world representation at arbitrary timestamps and splats the corresponding conditional 3D Gaussians into semantic occupancy volumes. This enables efficient forecasting over the full horizon while retaining a compact and interpretable scene representation. By decoupling spatial geometry, temporal support, and primitive motion, GEM makes the predicted world easier to inspect, as each primitive's evolution can be followed continuously over time. The same representation also supports motion planning by predicting future ego trajectories from the learned Gaussian world. Extensive experiments show that GEM achieves state-of-the-art future semantic occupancy forecasting and strong motion planning performance, while providing flexible temporal querying.
The growing interest in behavior foundation models, combined with recent advancements in generative modeling, has led to an appealing recipe for reinforcement learning from unlabeled data: pre-train a generative model to model occupancies, i.e., discounted state visitations, on reward-free trajectories, such that a policy can be easily extracted once a small reward-labeled dataset becomes available. We decompose this recipe along three axes: (i) the degree to which the multi-modal structure of occupancies must be captured, (ii) the class of generative model, and (iii) the method used for policy extraction. Along each axis, we consider existing choices, propose simpler alternatives, and validate each decision experimentally. This analysis culminates in a novel, streamlined method that leverages drifting, a modern one-step generative sampler, to model the occupancy. We show that this enables policy extraction via direct differentiation through the occupancy model, and bypasses the need for critic distillation. Overall, we observe that this nimble setup leads to improvements in performance on standard benchmarks.
Robin Uhrich, Marco Bagatella, Núria Armengol Urpí +2
University of Tübingen · ETH Zürich · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems