Model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) seeks to enhance data efficiency by learning a model of the environment and generating synthetic rollouts from it. However, accumulated model errors during these rollouts can distort the data distribution, negatively impacting policy learning and hindering long-term planning. Thus, the accumulation of model errors is a key bottleneck in current MBRL methods. We propose Infoprop, a model-based rollout mechanism that separates aleatoric from epistemic model uncertainty and reduces the influence of the latter on the data distribution. Further, Infoprop keeps track of accumulated model errors along a model rollout and provides termination criteria to limit data corruption. We demonstrate the capabilities of Infoprop in the Infoprop-Dyna algorithm, reporting state-of-the-art performance in Dyna-style MBRL on common MuJoCo benchmark tasks while substantially increasing rollout length and data quality. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful framework for solving complex decisionmaking tasks like racing Vasco et al. (2024); Kaufmann et al. (2023) and gameplay OpenAI et al. (2019); Bi & D'Andrea (2024).

This paper explores the use of model-based offline reinforcement learning with long model rollouts. While some literature criticizes this approach due to compounding errors, many practitioners have found success in real-world applications. The paper aims to demonstrate that long rollouts do not necessarily result in exponentially growing errors and can actually produce better Q-value estimates than model-free methods. These findings can potentially enhance reinforcement learning techniques.

Dyna-style model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) combines model-free agents with predictive transition models through model-based rollouts. This combination raises a critical question: 'When to trust your model?'; i.e., which rollout length results in the model providing useful data? Janner et al. (2019) address this question by gradually increasing rollout lengths throughout the training. While theoretically tempting, uniform model accuracy is a fallacy that collapses at the latest when extrapolating. Instead, we propose asking the question 'Where to trust your model?'. Using inherent model uncertainty to consider local accuracy, we obtain the Model-Based Actor-Critic with Uncertainty-Aware Rollout Adaption (MACURA) algorithm. We propose an easy-to-tune rollout mechanism and demonstrate substantial improvements in data efficiency and performance compared to state-of-the-art deep MBRL methods on the MuJoCo benchmark.

Goal-conditioned hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) presents a promising approach for enabling effective exploration in complex long-horizon reinforcement learning (RL) tasks via temporal abstraction. Yet, most goal-conditioned HRL algorithms focused on the subgoal discovery, regardless of inter-level coupling. In essence, for hierarchical systems, the increased inter-level communication and coordination can induce more stable and robust policy improvement. Here, we present a goal-conditioned HRL framework with Guided Cooperation via Model-based Rollout (GCMR), which estimates forward dynamics to promote inter-level cooperation. The GCMR alleviates the state-transition error within off-policy correction through a model-based rollout, further improving the sample efficiency. Meanwhile, to avoid being disrupted by these corrected but possibly unseen or faraway goals, lower-level Q-function gradients are constrained using a gradient penalty with a model-inferred upper bound, leading to a more stable behavioral policy. Besides, we propose a one-step rollout-based planning to further facilitate inter-level cooperation, where the higher-level Q-function is used to guide the lower-level policy by estimating the value of future states so that global task information is transmitted downwards to avoid local pitfalls. Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating the proposed GCMR framework with ACLG, a disentangled variant of HIGL, yields more stable and robust policy improvement than baselines and substantially outperforms previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) HRL algorithms in both hard-exploration problems and robotic control.

Control barrier functions (CBFs) are widely used in safety-critical controllers. However, constructing a valid CBF is challenging, especially under nonlinear or non-convex constraints and for high relative degree systems. Meanwhile, finding a conservative CBF that only recovers a portion of the true safe set is usually possible. In this work, starting from a "conservative" handcrafted CBF (HCBF), we develop a method to find a CBF that recovers a reasonably larger portion of the safe set. Since the learned CBF controller is not guaranteed to be safe during training iterations, we use a model predictive controller (MPC) to ensure safety during training. Using the collected trajectory data containing safe and unsafe interactions, we train a neural network to estimate the difference between the HCBF and a CBF that recovers a closer solution to the true safe set. With our proposed approach, we can generate safe controllers that are less conservative and computationally more efficient. We validate our approach on two systems: a second-order integrator and a ball-on-beam.

Standard single-step models have a horizon of one. This post describes a method for training predictive dynamics models in continuous state spaces with an infinite, probabilistic horizon. Reinforcement learning algorithms are frequently categorized by whether they predict future states at any point in their decision-making process. Those that do are called model-based, and those that do not are dubbed model-free. This classification is so common that we mostly take it for granted these days; I am guilty of using it myself.

Reinforcement learning algorithms are frequently categorized by whether they predict future states at any point in their decision-making process. Those that do are called model-based, and those that do not are dubbed model-free. This classification is so common that we mostly take it for granted these days; I am guilty of using it myself. However, this distinction is not as clear-cut as it may initially seem. In this post, I will talk about an alternative view that emphases the mechanism of prediction instead of the content of prediction.