In CEM, a World Model Is Also a Proposal Mechanism

arXiv:2610.00921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The cross-entropy method (CEM) uses world-model scores to select action sequences and fit the distribution sampled in its next iteration. A scoring error can therefore change both the present decision and the candidates considered later. We evaluate these two roles separately. Four types of predictive model generate CEM traces, and every model rescores every saved candidate pool. Executing the same candidates in the environment provides a reference elite set and proposal update. Across twelve independently trained task-seed units on Walker and Cheetah, the pre-specified proposal distance falls from the first to the final CEM iteration in every unit. Proposal widths contract and fitted means separate relative to the remaining search width. Pairwise ranking agreement stays near chance on Walker and declines on Cheetah; elite-set agreement does not improve. This comparison shows greater variation between scorers than between pool sources on Cheetah; Walker has variation in both and in their pairings. We use the original six units to select Random nonlinear for a one-update intervention, without inspecting intervention outcomes. Replacing its first model-ranked update with an environment-ranked update lowers final realised selected-sequence cost in those six units and in six further units held out from the selection.

Abstract:The cross-entropy method (CEM) uses world-model scores to select action sequences and fit the distribution sampled in its next iteration. A scoring error can therefore change both the present decision and the candidates considered later. We evaluate these two roles separately. Four types of predictive model generate CEM traces, and every model rescores every saved candidate pool. Executing the same candidates in the environment provides a reference elite set and proposal update. Across twelve independently trained task-seed units on Walker and Cheetah, the pre-specified proposal distance falls from the first to the final CEM iteration in every unit. Proposal widths contract and fitted means separate relative to the remaining search width. Pairwise ranking agreement stays near chance on Walker and declines on Cheetah; elite-set agreement does not improve. This comparison shows greater variation between scorers than between pool sources on Cheetah; Walker has variation in both and in their pairings. We use the original six units to select Random nonlinear for a one-update intervention, without inspecting intervention outcomes. Replacing its first model-ranked update with an environment-ranked update lowers final realised selected-sequence cost in those six units and in six further units held out from the selection.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Robotics (cs.RO)

arXiv:2610.00921 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.00921v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00921 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

In CEM, a World Model Is Also a Proposal Mechanism

Subiecte conexe