MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979317552

Discrete Codebook World Models for Continuous Control

2025· article· en· W6979317552 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAaltodoc (Aalto University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersFinnish Center for Artificial IntelligenceBusiness FinlandChina Scholarship CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsCodebookControl (management)Discrete time and continuous timeLatent variableContinuous modellingDiscrete optimizationKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In reinforcement learning (RL), world models serve as internal simulators, enabling agents to predict environment dynamics and future outcomes in order to make informed decisions. While previous approaches leveraging discrete latent spaces, such as DreamerV3, have demonstrated strong performance in discrete action settings and visual control tasks, their comparative performance in state-based continuous control remains underexplored. In contrast, methods with continuous latent spaces, such as TD-MPC2, have shown notable success in state-based continuous control benchmarks. In this paper, we demonstrate that modeling discrete latent states has benefits over continuous latent states and that discrete codebook encodings are more effective representations for continuous control, compared to alternative encodings, such as one-hot and label-based encodings. Based on these insights, we introduce DCWM: Discrete Codebook World Model, a self-supervised world model with a discrete and stochastic latent space, where latent states are codes from a codebook. We combine DCWM with decision-time planning to get our model-based RL algorithm, named DC-MPC: Discrete Codebook Model Predictive Control, which performs competitively against recent state-of-the-art algorithms, including TD-MPC2 and DreamerV3, on continuous control benchmarks. See our project website www.aidanscannell.com/dcmpc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAaltodoc (Aalto University)Same topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207