Papers › Procedural Generalization by Planning with Self-Supervised World Models
Procedural Generalization by Planning with Self-Supervised World Models
Ankesh Anand, Jacob Walker, Yazhe Li, Eszter Vértes, Julian Schrittwieser, Sherjil Ozair, Théophane Weber, Jessica B. Hamrick
One of the key promises of model-based reinforcement learning is the ability to generalize using an internal model of the world to make predictions in novel environments and tasks. However, the generalization ability of model-based agents is not well understood because existing work has focused on model-free agents when benchmarking generalization. Here, we explicitly measure the generalization ability of model-based agents in comparison to their model-free counterparts. We focus our analysis on MuZero (Schrittwieser et al., 2020), a powerful model-based agent, and evaluate its performance on both procedural and task generalization. We identify three factors of procedural generalization -- planning, self-supervised representation learning, and procedural data diversity -- and show that by combining these techniques, we achieve state-of-the art generalization performance and data efficiency on Procgen (Cobbe et al., 2019). However, we find that these factors do not always provide the same benefits for the task generalization benchmarks in Meta-World (Yu et al., 2019), indicating that transfer remains a challenge and may require different approaches than procedural generalization. Overall, we suggest that building generalizable agents requires moving beyond the single-task, model-free paradigm and towards self-supervised model-based agents that are trained in rich, procedural, multi-task environments.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meta-Learning | ML10 | MZ+Recon | Meta-test success rate (zero-shot) | 25 | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML10 | MZ+Recon | Meta-train success rate | 97.8% | #5 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML10 | MZ | Meta-test success rate (zero-shot) | 26.5 | #6 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML10 | MZ | Meta-train success rate | 97.6% | #6 of 6 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML45 | MZ+Recon | Meta-test success rate (zero-shot) | 18.5 | #1 of 2 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML45 | MZ+Recon | Meta-train success rate | 74.9 | #1 of 2 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML45 | MZ | Meta-test success rate (zero-shot) | 17.7 | #2 of 2 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Meta-Learning | ML45 | MZ | Meta-train success rate | 77.2 | #2 of 2 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections