mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Predicting Closed-Loop Performance of Latent World Models: Offline Checkpoint Selection for MPC and Model-Based RL Under Non-Markovian Rewards in LunarLander

arXiv 2607.01736 ↗First posted 2 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.SYcited by 2

On the map: World models → Latent dynamics models and model-based RL

Abstract (arXiv)

We study the closed-loop properties of a recurrent state-space model (RSSM) world model trained on human demonstrations in Gymnasium's LunarLander-v3. We use the trained world model for zero-shot CEM model-predictive control (MPC) and for actor-critic (A2C) training in imagination. Scored on 100 held-out episodes, the selected model-based A2C policy (trained on world-model checkpoint 280) reaches a mean return of +189.5, matching the best model-free A2C checkpoint (+183.7; 600- and 1000-step episode caps respectively) with ~65x fewer real training transitions. We also compare world-model MPC with a behaviour-cloning (BC) policy trained on the successful demonstrations. The BC policy matches MPC's mean return only under stochastic action selection, and on the same 20 episodes it has one catastrophic episode where MPC has none. We then introduce the Reward Observability Fraction (ROF), the Euclidean fraction of the reward gradient in the observable subspace of the linearized latent dynamics, and show that the next H observations carry Fisher information about every direction in this subspace and none about directions orthogonal to it. ROF itself however depends on how the latent is scaled: rescaling it changes ROF but not the model, so raw levels are not comparable across models. Forcing the reward head onto the posterior-corrected latent z raises ROF, and the rise survives a coordinate-invariant check on the pair of runs we tested. Finally, we test whether ROF or other offline metrics can predict the closed-loop collapse of MPC. Collapse varies between training runs with identical data and configuration. ROF does not predict it, none of the 108 offline summaries we screened passes a permutation test, and the best candidate fails on new runs. Predicting collapse offline from the model and logged data alone remains open.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Latent dynamics models and model-based RL, one of 11 directions in World models. Builds on 12 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.

Builds on

12 of 21 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Mastering Diverse Domains through World Models10 Jan
  2. 2019Dream to Control: Learning Behaviors by Latent Imagination3 Dec
  3. 2018Deep Reinforcement Learning in a Handful of Trials using Probabilistic Dynamics Models30 May

Other references · 9

  1. 2015High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimationcited by 1,916
  2. 2018Learning Latent Dynamics for Planning from Pixelscited by 1,221
  3. 2020MOPO: Model-based Offline Policy Optimizationcited by 630
  4. 2020MOReL : Model-Based Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 582
  5. 2021Contrastive Behavioral Similarity Embeddings for Generalization in Reinforcement Learningcited by 123
  6. 2020Objective Mismatch in Model-based Reinforcement Learningcited by 87
  7. 2021Active Offline Policy Selectioncited by 26
  8. 2024The Edge-of-Reach Problem in Offline Model-Based Reinforcement Learningcited by 8
  9. 2025Enhancing Offline Model-Based RL via Active Model Selection: A Bayesian Optimization Perspectivecited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Learning from World Feedback: Why Model Uncertainty Fails as a Risk Signal in Model-Based RL
  2. 2026Curiosity-Critic: Cumulative Prediction Error Improvement as a Tractable Intrinsic Reward for World Model Training
  3. 2026World Models with Predictable Long-Horizon Marginals
  4. 2026How Far Can Unsupervised RLVR Scale LLM Training?
  5. 2026When RLHF Fails: A Mechanistic Taxonomy of Reward Hacking, Collapse, and Evaluator Gaming
  6. 2026Rate or Fate? RLV^varepsilonR: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Noisy Rewards
  7. 2026Quantifying Empirical Compute-Supervision Tradeoffs in RLVR
  8. 2026Reward Models Are Secretly Value Functions: Temporally Coherent Reward Modeling