model-based-rl

name	model-based-rl
description	Master Dyna-Q, MBPO, Dreamer - model-based RL with world models and planning

Model-Based Reinforcement Learning

When to Use This Skill

Invoke this skill when you encounter:

• Learning World Models: User wants to predict future states from current state + action
• Planning with Models: How to use learned models for planning (MPC, shooting)
• Dyna-Q Questions: How to combine model-free (Q-learning) with model-based (planning)
• MBPO Implementation: Short rollouts, model ensemble, policy optimization
• Dreamer Architecture: Latent world models, imagination in latent space
• Model Error Handling: Why long rollouts diverge, how to keep rollouts short
• Sim-to-Real: Using simulators, domain randomization, reality gap
• Sample Efficiency Claims: When model-based actually saves samples vs compute cost
• Distribution Shift: Policy improves → states leave training distribution → model fails

This skill bridges model learning and policy improvement.

Do NOT use this skill for:

• Pure dynamics learning (use supervised learning, not RL)
• Perfect simulators (those are Dreamers, not world models)
• Model-free policy optimization (use policy-gradient-methods, actor-critic-methods)
• Debugging specific algorithm (use rl-debugging)

Core Principle

Model-based RL trades sample complexity for model error.

The fundamental tradeoff:

• Sample Complexity: Learning from real world requires few samples (model helps)
• Model Error: Learned models diverge from reality, planning on wrong models hurts
• Solution: Keep rollouts short (k=5-10), bootstrap with value function, handle distribution shift

Without understanding error mechanics, you'll implement algorithms that learn model errors instead of policies.

---

Part 1: World Models (Dynamics Learning)

What is a World Model?

A world model (dynamics model) learns to predict the next state from current state and action:

Deterministic: s_{t+1} = f(s_t, a_t)
Stochastic:    p(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t)  = N(μ_θ(s_t, a_t), σ_θ(s_t, a_t))

Key Components:

1. State Representation: What info captures current situation? (pixels, features, latent)
2. Dynamics Function: Neural network mapping (s, a) → s'
3. Loss Function: How to train? (MSE, cross-entropy, contrastive)
4. Uncertainty: Estimate model confidence (ensemble, aleatoric, epistemic)

Example 1: Pixel-Based Dynamics

Environment: Cart-pole

Input: Current image (84×84×4 pixels)
Output: Next image (84×84×4 pixels)
Model: CNN that predicts image differences

Loss = MSE(predicted_frame, true_frame) + regularization

Architecture:

class PixelDynamicsModel(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        self.encoder = CNN(input_channels=4, output_dim=256)
        self.dynamics_net = MLP(256 + action_dim, 256)
        self.decoder = TransposeCNN(256, output_channels=4)

    def forward(self, s, a):
        # Encode image
        z = self.encoder(s)

        # Predict latent next state
        z_next = self.dynamics_net(torch.cat([z, a], dim=1))

        # Decode to image
        s_next = self.decoder(z_next)
        return s_next

Training:

For each real transition (s, a, s_next):
    pred_s_next = model(s, a)
    loss = MSE(pred_s_next, s_next)
    loss.backward()

Problem: Pixel-space errors compound (blurry 50-step predictions).

---

Example 2: Latent-Space Dynamics

Better for high-dim observations (learn representation + dynamics separately).

Architecture:

1. Encoder: s → z (256-dim latent)
2. Dynamics: z_t, a_t → z_{t+1}
3. Decoder: z → s (reconstruction)
4. Reward Predictor: z, a → r

Training:

Reconstruction loss: ||s - decode(encode(s))||²
Dynamics loss: ||z_{t+1} - f(z_t, a_t)||²
Reward loss: ||r - reward_net(z_t, a_t)||²

Advantage: Learns compact representation, faster rollouts, better generalization.

---

Example 3: Stochastic Dynamics

Handle environment stochasticity (multiple outcomes from (s, a)):

class StochasticDynamicsModel(nn.Module):
    def forward(self, s, a):
        # Predict mean and std of next state distribution
        z = self.encoder(s)
        mu, log_sigma = self.dynamics_net(torch.cat([z, a], dim=1))

        # Sample next state
        z_next = mu + torch.exp(log_sigma) * torch.randn_like(mu)
        return z_next, mu, log_sigma

Training:

NLL loss = -log p(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t)
         = ||s_{t+1} - μ||² / (2σ²) + log σ

Key: Captures uncertainty (aleatoric: environment noise, epistemic: model uncertainty).

---

World Model Pitfall #1: Compounding Errors

Bad Understanding: "If model is 95% accurate, 50-step rollout is (0.95)^50 = 5% accurate."

Reality: Error compounds worse.

Mechanics:

Step 1: s1_pred = s1_true + ε1
Step 2: s2_pred = f(s1_pred, a1) = f(s1_true + ε1, a1) = f(s1_true, a1) + ∇f ε1 + ε2
       Error grows: ε_cumulative ≈ ||∇f|| * ε_prev + ε2
Step 3: Error keeps magnifying (if ||∇f|| > 1)

Example: Cart-pole position error 0.1 pixel

After 1 step: 0.10
After 5 steps: ~0.15 (small growth)
After 10 steps: ~0.25 (noticeable)
After 50 steps: ~2.0 (completely wrong)

Solution: Use short rollouts (k=5-10), trust value function beyond.

---

World Model Pitfall #2: Distribution Shift

Scenario: Train model on policy π_0 data, policy improves to π_1.

What Happens:

π_0 data distribution: {s1, s2, s3, ...}
Model trained on: P_0(s)

π_1 visits new states: {s4, s5, s6, ...}
Model has no training data for {s4, s5, s6}
Model predictions on new states: WRONG (distribution shift)

Planning uses wrong model → Policy learns model errors

Example: Cartpole

• Initial: pole barely moving
• After learning: pole swinging wildly
• Model trained on small-angle dynamics
• New states (large angle) outside training distribution
• Model breaks

Solution:

1. Retrain model frequently (as policy improves)
2. Use ensemble (detect epistemic uncertainty in new states)
3. Keep policy close to training distribution (regularization)

---

Part 2: Planning with Learned Models

What is Planning?

Planning = using model to simulate trajectories and find good actions.

General Form:

Given:
- Current state s_t
- Dynamics model f(·)
- Reward function r(·) (known or learned)
- Value function V(·) (for horizon beyond imagination)

Find action a_t that maximizes:
  Q(s_t, a_t) = E[Σ_{τ=0}^{k} γ^τ r(s_τ, a_τ) + γ^k V(s_{t+k})]

Two Approaches:

1. Model Predictive Control (MPC): Solve optimization at each step
2. Shooting Methods: Sample trajectories, pick best

---

Model Predictive Control (MPC)

Algorithm:

1. At each step:
   - Initialize candidate actions a₀, a₁, ..., a_{k-1}

2. Compute k-step imagined rollout:
   s₁ = f(s_t, a₀)
   s₂ = f(s₁, a₁)
   ...
   s_k = f(s_{k-1}, a_{k-1})

3. Evaluate trajectory:
   Q = Σ τ=0 to k-1 [γ^τ r(s_τ, a_τ)] + γ^k V(s_k)

4. Optimize actions to maximize Q
5. Execute first action a₀, discard rest
6. Replan at next step

Optimization Methods:

• Cross-Entropy Method (CEM): Sample actions, keep best, resample
• Shooting: Random shooting, iLQR, etc.

Example: Cart-pole with learned model

def mpc_planning(s_current, model, reward_fn, value_fn, k=5, horizon=100):
    best_action = None
    best_return = -float('inf')

    # Sample candidate action sequences
    for _ in range(100):  # CEM: sample trajectories
        actions = np.random.randn(k, action_dim)

        # Simulate trajectory
        s = s_current
        trajectory_return = 0

        for t in range(k):
            s_next = model(s, actions[t])
            r = reward_fn(s, actions[t])
            trajectory_return += gamma**t * r
            s = s_next

        # Bootstrap with value
        trajectory_return += gamma**k * value_fn(s)

        # Track best
        if trajectory_return > best_return:
            best_return = trajectory_return
            best_action = actions[0]

    return best_action

Key Points:

• Replan at every step (expensive, but avoids compounding errors)
• Use short horizons (k=5-10)
• Bootstrap with value function

---

Shooting Methods

Random Shooting (simplest):

def random_shooting(s, model, reward_fn, value_fn, k=5, num_samples=1000):
    best_action = None
    best_return = -float('inf')

    # Sample random action sequences
    for _ in range(num_samples):
        actions = np.random.uniform(action_min, action_max, size=(k, action_dim))

        # Rollout
        s_current = s
        returns = 0
        for t in range(k):
            s_next = model(s_current, actions[t])
            r = reward_fn(s_current, actions[t])
            returns += gamma**t * r
            s_current = s_next

        # Bootstrap
        returns += gamma**k * value_fn(s_current)

        if returns > best_return:
            best_return = returns
            best_action = actions[0]

    return best_action

Trade-offs:

• Pros: Simple, parallelizable, no gradient computation
• Cons: Slow (needs many samples), doesn't refine actions

iLQR/LQR: Assumes quadratic reward, can optimize actions.

---

Planning Pitfall #1: Long Horizons

User Belief: "k=50 is better than k=5 (more planning)."

Reality:

k=5: Q = r₀ + γr₁ + ... + γ⁴r₄ + γ⁵V(s₅)
     Errors from 5 steps of model error
     But V(s₅) more reliable (only 5 steps out)

k=50: Q = r₀ + γr₁ + ... + γ⁴⁹r₄₉ + γ⁵⁰V(s₅₀)
      Errors from 50 steps compound!
      s₅₀ prediction probably wrong
      V(s₅₀) estimated on out-of-distribution state

Result: k=50 rollouts learn model errors, policy worse than k=5.

---

Part 3: Dyna-Q (Model + Model-Free Hybrid)

The Idea

Dyna = Dynamics + Q-Learning

Combine:

1. Real Transitions: Learn Q from real environment data (model-free)
2. Imagined Transitions: Learn Q from model-generated data (model-based)

Why? Leverage both:

• Real data: Updates are correct, but expensive
• Imagined data: Updates are cheap, but noisy

---

Dyna-Q Algorithm

Initialize:
  Q(s, a) = 0 for all (s, a)
  M = {} (dynamics model, initially empty)

Repeat:
  1. Sample real transition: (s, a) → (r, s_next)

  2. Update Q from real transition (Q-learning):
     Q[s, a] += α(r + γ max_a' Q[s_next, a'] - Q[s, a])

  3. Update model M with real transition:
     M[s, a] = (r, s_next)  [deterministic, or learn distribution]

  4. Imagine k steps:
     For n = 1 to k:
       s_r = random state from visited states
       a_r = random action
       (r, s_next) = M[s_r, a_r]

       # Update Q from imagined transition
       Q[s_r, a_r] += α(r + γ max_a' Q[s_next, a'] - Q[s_r, a_r])

Key Insight: Use model to generate additional training data (imagined transitions).

---

Example: Dyna-Q on Cartpole

class DynaQ:
    def __init__(self, alpha=0.1, gamma=0.9, k_planning=10):
        self.Q = defaultdict(lambda: defaultdict(float))
        self.M = {}  # state, action → (reward, next_state)
        self.alpha = alpha
        self.gamma = gamma
        self.k = k_planning
        self.visited_states = set()
        self.visited_actions = {}

    def learn_real_transition(self, s, a, r, s_next):
        """Learn from real transition (step 1-3)"""
        # Q-learning update
        max_q_next = max(self.Q[s_next].values()) if s_next in self.Q else 0
        self.Q[s][a] += self.alpha * (r + self.gamma * max_q_next - self.Q[s][a])

        # Model update
        self.M[(s, a)] = (r, s_next)

        # Track visited states/actions
        self.visited_states.add(s)
        if s not in self.visited_actions:
            self.visited_actions[s] = set()
        self.visited_actions[s].add(a)

    def planning_steps(self):
        """Imagine k steps (step 4)"""
        for _ in range(self.k):
            # Random state-action from memory
            s_r = random.choice(list(self.visited_states))
            a_r = random.choice(list(self.visited_actions[s_r]))

            # Imagine transition
            if (s_r, a_r) in self.M:
                r, s_next = self.M[(s_r, a_r)]

                # Q-learning update on imagined transition
                max_q_next = max(self.Q[s_next].values()) if s_next in self.Q else 0
                self.Q[s_r][a_r] += self.alpha * (
                    r + self.gamma * max_q_next - self.Q[s_r][a_r]
                )

    def choose_action(self, s, epsilon=0.1):
        """ε-greedy policy"""
        if random.random() < epsilon:
            return random.choice(actions)
        return max(self.Q[s].items(), key=lambda x: x[1])[0]

    def train_episode(self, env):
        s = env.reset()
        done = False

        while not done:
            a = self.choose_action(s)
            s_next, r, done, _ = env.step(a)

            # Learn from real transition
            self.learn_real_transition(s, a, r, s_next)

            # Planning steps
            self.planning_steps()

            s = s_next

Benefits:

• Real transitions: Accurate but expensive
• Imagined transitions: Cheap, accelerates learning

Sample Efficiency: Dyna-Q learns faster than Q-learning alone (imagined transitions provide extra updates).

---

Dyna-Q Pitfall #1: Model Overfitting

Problem: Model learned on limited data, doesn't generalize.

Example: Model memorizes transitions, imagined transitions all identical.

Solution:

1. Use ensemble (multiple models, average predictions)
2. Track model uncertainty
3. Weight imagined updates by confidence
4. Limit planning in uncertain regions

---

Part 4: MBPO (Model-Based Policy Optimization)

The Idea

MBPO = Short rollouts + Policy optimization (SAC)

Key Insight: Don't use model for full-episode rollouts. Use model for short rollouts (k=5), bootstrap with learned value function.

Architecture:

1. Train ensemble of dynamics models (4-7 models)
2. For each real transition (s, a) → (r, s_next):
   - Roll out k=5 steps with model
   - Collect imagined transitions (s, a, r, s', s'', ...)
3. Combine real + imagined data
4. Update Q-function and policy (SAC)
5. Repeat

---

MBPO Algorithm

Initialize:
  Models = [M1, M2, ..., M_n]  (ensemble)
  Q-function, policy, target network

Repeat for N environment steps:
  1. Collect real transition: (s, a) → (r, s_next)

  2. Roll out k steps using ensemble:
     s = s_current
     For t = 1 to k:
       # Use ensemble mean (or sample one model)
       s_next = mean([M_i(s, a) for M_i in Models])
       r = reward_fn(s, a)  [learned reward model]

       Store imagined transition: (s, a, r, s_next)
       s = s_next

  3. Mix real + imagined:
     - Real buffer: 10% real transitions
     - Imagined buffer: 90% imagined transitions (from rollouts)

  4. Update Q-function (n_gradient_steps):
     Sample batch from mixed buffer
     Compute TD error: (r + γ V(s_next) - Q(s, a))²
     Optimize Q

  5. Update policy (n_policy_steps):
     Use SAC: maximize E[Q(s, a) - α log π(a|s)]

  6. Decay rollout ratio:
     As model improves, increase imagined % (k stays fixed)

---

Key MBPO Design Choices

1. Rollout Length k:

k=5-10 recommended (not k=50)

Why short?
- Error compounding (k=5 gives manageable error)
- Value bootstrapping works (V is learned from real data)
- MPC-style replanning (discard imagined trajectory)

2. Ensemble Disagreement:

High disagreement = model uncertainty in new state region

Use disagreement as:
- Early stopping (stop imagining if uncertainty high)
- Weighting (less trust in uncertain predictions)
- Exploration bonus (similar to curiosity)

disagreement = max_i ||M_i(s, a) - M_j(s, a)||

3. Model Retraining Schedule:

Too frequent: Overfitting to latest data
Too infrequent: Model becomes stale

MBPO: Retrain every N environment steps
     Typical: N = every 1000 real transitions

4. Real vs Imagined Ratio:

High real ratio: Few imagined transitions, limited speedup
High imagined ratio: Many imagined transitions, faster, higher model error

MBPO: Start high real % (100%), gradually increase imagined % to 90%

Why gradually?
- Early: Model untrained, use real data
- Later: Model accurate, benefit from imagined data

---

MBPO Example (Pseudocode)

class MBPO:
    def __init__(self, env, k=5, num_models=7):
        self.models = [DynamicsModel() for _ in range(num_models)]
        self.q_net = QNetwork()
        self.policy = SACPolicy()
        self.target_q_net = deepcopy(self.q_net)

        self.k = k  # Rollout length
        self.real_ratio = 0.05
        self.real_buffer = ReplayBuffer()
        self.imagined_buffer = ReplayBuffer()

    def collect_real_transitions(self, num_steps=1000):
        """Collect from real environment"""
        for _ in range(num_steps):
            s = self.env.state
            a = self.policy(s)
            r, s_next = self.env.step(a)

            self.real_buffer.add((s, a, r, s_next))

            # Retrain models
            if len(self.real_buffer) % 1000 == 0:
                self.train_models()
                self.generate_imagined_transitions()

    def train_models(self):
        """Train ensemble on real data"""
        for model in self.models:
            dataset = self.real_buffer.sample_batch(batch_size=256)
            for _ in range(model_epochs):
                loss = model.train_on_batch(dataset)

    def generate_imagined_transitions(self):
        """Roll out k steps with each real transition"""
        for (s, a, r_real, s_next_real) in self.real_buffer.sample_batch(256):
            # Discard, use to seed rollouts

            # Rollout k steps
            s = s_next_real  # Start from real next state
            for t in range(self.k):
                # Ensemble prediction (mean)
                s_pred = torch.stack([m(s, None) for m in self.models]).mean(dim=0)
                r_pred = self.reward_model(s, None)  # Learned reward

                # Check ensemble disagreement
                disagreement = torch.std(
                    torch.stack([m(s, None) for m in self.models]), dim=0
                ).mean()

                # Early stopping if uncertain
                if disagreement > uncertainty_threshold:
                    break

                # Store imagined transition
                self.imagined_buffer.add((s, a_random, r_pred, s_pred))

                s = s_pred

    def train_policy(self, num_steps=10000):
        """Train Q-function and policy with mixed data"""
        for step in range(num_steps):
            # Sample from mixed buffer (5% real, 95% imagined)
            if random.random() < self.real_ratio:
                batch = self.real_buffer.sample_batch(128)
            else:
                batch = self.imagined_buffer.sample_batch(128)

            # Q-learning update (SAC)
            td_target = batch['r'] + gamma * self.target_q_net(batch['s_next'])
            q_loss = MSE(self.q_net(batch['s'], batch['a']), td_target)
            q_loss.backward()

            # Policy update (SAC)
            a_new = self.policy(batch['s'])
            policy_loss = -self.q_net(batch['s'], a_new) + alpha * entropy(a_new)
            policy_loss.backward()

---

MBPO Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: k too large

k=50 → Model errors compound, policy learns errors
k=5 → Manageable error, good bootstrap

Pitfall 2: No ensemble

Single model → Overconfident, plans in wrong regions
Ensemble → Uncertainty estimated, early stopping works

Pitfall 3: Model never retrained

Policy improves → States change → Model becomes stale
Solution: Retrain every N steps (or when performance plateaus)

Pitfall 4: High imagined ratio early

Model untrained, 90% imagined data → Learning garbage
Solution: Start low (5% imagined), gradually increase

---

Part 5: Dreamer (Latent World Models)

The Idea

Dreamer = Imagination in latent space

Problem: Pixel-space world models hard to train (blurry reconstructions, high-dim). Solution: Learn latent representation, do imagination there.

Architecture:

1. Encoder: Image → Latent (z)
2. VAE: Latent space with KL regularization
3. Dynamics in latent: z_t, a_t → z_{t+1}
4. Policy: z_t → a_t (learns to dream)
5. Value: z_t → V(z_t)
6. Decoder: z_t → Image (reconstruction)
7. Reward: z_t, a_t → r (predict reward in latent space)

Key Difference from MBPO:

• MBPO: Short rollouts in state space, then Q-learning
• Dreamer: Imagine trajectories in latent space, then train policy + value in imagination

---

Dreamer Algorithm

Phase 1: World Model Learning (offline)
  Given: Real replay buffer with (image, action, reward)

  1. Encode: z_t = encoder(image_t)
  2. Learn VAE loss: KL(z || N(0, I)) + ||decode(z) - image||²
  3. Learn dynamics: ||z_{t+1} - dynamics(z_t, a_t)||²
  4. Learn reward: ||r_t - reward_net(z_t, a_t)||²
  5. Learn value: ||V(z_t) - discounted_return_t||²

Phase 2: Imagination (online, during learning)
  Given: Trained world model

  1. Sample state from replay buffer: z₀ = encoder(image₀)
  2. Imagine trajectory (15-50 steps):
     a_t ~ π(a_t | z_t)  [policy samples actions]
     r_t = reward_net(z_t, a_t)  [predict reward]
     z_{t+1} ~ dynamics(z_t, a_t)  [sample next latent]
  3. Compute imagined returns:
     G_t = r_t + γ r_{t+1} + ... + γ^{k-1} r_{t+k} + γ^k V(z_{t+k})
  4. Train policy to maximize: E[G_t]
  5. Train value to match: E[(V(z_t) - G_t)²]

---

Dreamer Details

1. Latent Dynamics Learning:

In pixel space: Errors accumulate visibly (blurry)
In latent space: Errors more abstract, easier to learn dynamics

Model: z_{t+1} = μ_θ(z_t, a_t) + σ_θ(z_t, a_t) * ε
       ε ~ N(0, I)

Loss: NLL(z_{t+1} | z_t, a_t)

2. Policy Learning via Imagination:

Standard RL in imagined trajectories (not real)

π(a_t | z_t) learns to select actions that:
- Maximize predicted reward
- Maximize value (long-term)
- Be uncertain in model predictions (curious)

3. Value Learning via Imagination:

V(z_t) learns to estimate imagined returns

Using stop-gradient (or separate network):
V(z_t) ≈ E[G_t]  over imagined trajectories

This enables bootstrapping in imagination

---

Dreamer Example (Pseudocode)

class Dreamer:
    def __init__(self):
        self.encoder = Encoder()  # image → z
        self.decoder = Decoder()  # z → image
        self.dynamics = Dynamics()  # (z, a) → z
        self.reward_net = RewardNet()  # (z, a) → r
        self.policy = Policy()  # z → a
        self.value_net = ValueNet()  # z → V(z)

    def world_model_loss(self, batch_images, batch_actions, batch_rewards):
        """Phase 1: Learn world model (supervised)"""
        # Encode
        z = self.encoder(batch_images)
        z_next = self.encoder(batch_images_next)

        # VAE loss (regularize latent)
        kl_loss = kl_divergence(z, N(0, I))
        recon_loss = MSE(self.decoder(z), batch_images)

        # Dynamics loss
        z_next_pred = self.dynamics(z, batch_actions)
        dynamics_loss = MSE(z_next_pred, z_next)

        # Reward loss
        r_pred = self.reward_net(z, batch_actions)
        reward_loss = MSE(r_pred, batch_rewards)

        total_loss = kl_loss + recon_loss + dynamics_loss + reward_loss
        return total_loss

    def imagine_trajectory(self, z_start, horizon=50):
        """Phase 2: Imagine trajectory"""
        z = z_start
        trajectory = []

        for t in range(horizon):
            # Sample action
            a = self.policy(z)

            # Predict reward
            r = self.reward_net(z, a)

            # Imagine next state
            mu, sigma = self.dynamics(z, a)
            z_next = mu + sigma * torch.randn_like(mu)

            trajectory.append((z, a, r, z_next))
            z = z_next

        return trajectory

    def compute_imagined_returns(self, trajectory):
        """Compute G_t = r_t + γ r_{t+1} + ... + γ^k V(z_k)"""
        returns = []
        G = 0

        # Backward pass
        for z, a, r, z_next in reversed(trajectory):
            G = r + gamma * G

        # Add value bootstrap
        z_final = trajectory[-1][3]
        G += gamma ** len(trajectory) * self.value_net(z_final)

        return G

    def train_policy_and_value(self, z_start_batch, horizon=15):
        """Phase 2: Train policy and value in imagination"""
        z = z_start_batch
        returns_list = []

        # Rollout imagination
        for t in range(horizon):
            a = self.policy(z)
            r = self.reward_net(z, a)

            mu, sigma = self.dynamics(z, a)
            z_next = mu + sigma * torch.randn_like(mu)

            # Compute return-to-go
            G = r + gamma * self.value_net(z_next)
            returns_list.append(G)

            z = z_next

        # Train value
        value_loss = MSE(self.value_net(z_start_batch), returns_list[0])
        value_loss.backward()

        # Train policy (maximize imagined return)
        policy_loss = -returns_list[0].mean()  # Maximize return
        policy_loss.backward()

---

Dreamer Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Too-long imagination

h=50: Latent dynamics errors compound
h=15: Better (manageable error)

Pitfall 2: No KL regularization

VAE collapses → z same for all states → dynamics useless
Solution: KL term forces diverse latent space

Pitfall 3: Policy overfits to value estimates

Early imagination: V(z_t) estimates wrong
Policy follows wrong value

Solution:
- Uncertainty estimation in imagination
- Separate value network
- Stop-gradient on value target

---

Part 6: When Model-Based Helps

Sample Efficiency

Claim: "Model-based RL is 10-100x more sample efficient."

Reality: Depends on compute budget.

Example: Cartpole

Model-free (DQN): 100k samples, instant policy
Model-based (MBPO):
  - 10k samples to train model: 2 minutes
  - 1 million imagined rollouts: 30 minutes
  - Total: 32 minutes for 10k real samples

Model-free wins on compute

When Model-Based Helps:

1. Real samples expensive: Robotics (100s per hour)
2. Sim available: Use for pre-training, transfer to real
3. Multi-task: Reuse model for multiple tasks
4. Offline RL: No online interaction, must plan from fixed data

---

Sim-to-Real Transfer

Setup:

1. Train model + policy in simulator (cheap samples)
2. Test on real robot (expensive, dangerous)
3. Reality gap: Simulator ≠ Real world

Approaches:

1. Domain Randomization: Vary simulator dynamics, color, physics
2. System Identification: Fit simulator to real robot
3. Robust Policy: Train policy robust to model errors

MBPO in Sim-to-Real:

1. Train in simulator (unlimited samples)
2. Collect real data (expensive)
3. Finetune model + policy on real data
4. Continue imagining with real-trained model

---

Multi-Task Learning

Setup: Train model once, use for multiple tasks.

Example:

Model learns: p(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t)  [task-independent]
Task 1 reward: r₁(s, a)
Task 2 reward: r₂(s, a)

Plan with model + reward₁
Plan with model + reward₂

Advantage: Model amortizes over tasks.

---

Part 7: Model Error Handling

Error Sources

1. Aleatoric (Environment Noise):

Same (s, a) can lead to multiple s'
Example: Pushing object, slight randomness in friction

Solution: Stochastic model p(s' | s, a)

2. Epistemic (Model Uncertainty):

Limited training data, model hasn't seen this state
Example: Policy explores new region, model untrained

Solution: Ensemble, Bayesian network, uncertainty quantification

3. Distribution Shift:

Policy improves, visits new states
Model trained on old policy data
New states: Out of training distribution

Solution: Retraining, regularization, uncertainty detection

---

Handling Uncertainty

Approach 1: Ensemble:

# Train multiple models on same data
models = [DynamicsModel() for _ in range(7)]
for model in models:
    train_model(model, data)

# Uncertainty = disagreement
predictions = [m(s, a) for m in models]
mean_pred = torch.stack(predictions).mean(dim=0)
std_pred = torch.stack(predictions).std(dim=0)

# Use for early stopping
if std_pred.mean() > threshold:
    stop_rollout()

Approach 2: Uncertainty Weighting:

High uncertainty → Less trust → Lower imagined data weight

Weight for imagined transition = 1 / (1 + ensemble_disagreement)

Approach 3: Conservative Planning:

Roll out only when ensemble agrees

disagreement = max_disagreement between models
if disagreement < threshold:
    roll_out()
else:
    use_only_real_data()

---

Part 8: Implementation Patterns

Pseudocode: Learning Dynamics Model

class DynamicsModel:
    def __init__(self, state_dim, action_dim):
        self.net = MLP(state_dim + action_dim, state_dim)
        self.optimizer = Adam(self.net.parameters())

    def predict(self, s, a):
        """Predict next state"""
        sa = torch.cat([s, a], dim=-1)
        s_next = self.net(sa)
        return s_next

    def train(self, dataset):
        """Supervised learning on real transitions"""
        s, a, s_next = dataset

        # Forward pass
        s_next_pred = self.predict(s, a)

        # Loss
        loss = MSE(s_next_pred, s_next)

        # Backward pass
        self.optimizer.zero_grad()
        loss.backward()
        self.optimizer.step()

        return loss.item()

Pseudocode: MPC Planning

def mpc_plan(s_current, model, reward_fn, value_fn, k=5, num_samples=100):
    """Model Predictive Control"""
    best_action = None
    best_return = -float('inf')

    for _ in range(num_samples):
        # Sample action sequence
        actions = np.random.uniform(-1, 1, size=(k, action_dim))

        # Rollout k steps
        s = s_current
        trajectory_return = 0

        for t in range(k):
            s_next = model.predict(s, actions[t])
            r = reward_fn(s, actions[t])
            trajectory_return += (gamma ** t) * r
            s = s_next

        # Bootstrap with value
        trajectory_return += (gamma ** k) * value_fn(s)

        # Track best
        if trajectory_return > best_return:
            best_return = trajectory_return
            best_action = actions[0]

    return best_action

---

Part 9: Common Pitfalls Summary

Pitfall 1: Long Rollouts

k=50 → Model errors compound
k=5 → Manageable error, good bootstrap
FIX: Keep k small, use value function

Pitfall 2: Distribution Shift

Policy changes → New states outside training distribution → Model wrong
FIX: Retrain model frequently, use ensemble for uncertainty

Pitfall 3: Model Overfitting

Few transitions → Model memorizes
FIX: Ensemble, regularization, hold-out validation set

Pitfall 4: No Value Bootstrapping

Pure imagined returns → All error in rollout
FIX: Bootstrap with learned value at horizon k

Pitfall 5: Using Model-Based When Model-Free Better

Simple task, perfect simulator → Model-based wastes compute
FIX: Use model-free (DQN, PPO) unless samples expensive

Pitfall 6: Model Never Updated

Policy improves, model stays frozen → Model stale
FIX: Retrain every N steps or monitor validation performance

Pitfall 7: High Imagined Data Ratio Early

Untrained model, 90% imagined → Learning garbage
FIX: Start with low imagined ratio, gradually increase

Pitfall 8: No Ensemble

Single model → Overconfident in uncertain regions
FIX: Use 4-7 models, aggregate predictions

Pitfall 9: Ignoring Reward Function

Use true reward with imperfect state model
FIX: Also learn reward model (or use true rewards if available)

Pitfall 10: Planning Too Long

Expensive planning, model errors → Not worth compute
FIX: Short horizons (k=5), real-time constraints

---

Part 10: Red Flags in Model-Based RL

• Long rollouts (k > 20): Model errors compound, use short rollouts
• No value function: Pure imagined returns, no bootstrap
• Single model: Overconfident, use ensemble
• Model never retrained: Policy changes, model becomes stale
• High imagined ratio early: Learning from bad model, start with 100% real
• No distribution shift handling: New states outside training distribution
• Comparing to wrong baseline: MBPO vs model-free, not MBPO vs DQN with same compute
• Believing sample efficiency claims: Model helps sample complexity, not compute time
• Treating dynamics as perfect: Model is learned, has errors
• No uncertainty estimates: Can't detect when to stop rolling out

---

Part 11: Rationalization Resistance

Rationalization	Reality	Counter	Red Flag
"k=50 is better planning"	Errors compound, k=5 better	Use short rollouts, bootstrap value	Long horizons
"I trained a model, done"	Missing planning algorithm	Use model for MPC/shooting/Dyna	No planning step
"100% imagined data"	Model untrained, garbage quality	Start 100% real, gradually increase	No real data ratio
"Single model fine"	Overconfident, plans in wrong regions	Ensemble provides uncertainty	Single model
"Model-based always better"	Model errors + compute vs sample efficiency	Only help when real samples expensive	Unconditional belief
"One model for life"	Policy improves, model becomes stale	Retrain every N steps	Static model
"Dreamer works on pixels"	Needs good latent learning, complex tuning	MBPO simpler on state space	Wrong problem
"Value function optional"	Pure rollout return = all model error	Bootstrap with learned value	No bootstrapping

---

Summary

You now understand:

1. World Models: Learning p(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t), error mechanics
2. Planning: MPC, shooting, Dyna-Q, short horizons, value bootstrapping
3. Dyna-Q: Combining real + imagined transitions
4. MBPO: Short rollouts (k=5), ensemble, value bootstrapping
5. Dreamer: Latent imagination, imagination in latent space
6. Model Error: Compounding, distribution shift, uncertainty estimation
7. When to Use: Real samples expensive, sim-to-real, multi-task
8. Pitfalls: Long rollouts, no bootstrapping, overconfidence, staleness

Key Insights:

• Error compounding: Keep k small (5-10), trust value function beyond
• Distribution shift: Retrain model as policy improves, use ensemble
• Value bootstrapping: Horizon k, then V(s_k), not pure imagined return
• Sample vs Compute: Model helps sample complexity, not compute time
• When it helps: Real samples expensive (robotics), sim-to-real, multi-task

Route to implementation: Use MBPO for continuous control, Dyna-Q for discrete, Dreamer for visual tasks.

This foundation enables debugging model-based algorithms and knowing when they're appropriate.

---

Part 12: Advanced Model Learning Techniques

Latent Ensemble Models

Why Latent? State/pixel space models struggle with high-dimensional data.

Architecture:

Encoder: s (pixels) → z (latent, 256-dim)
Ensemble models: z_t, a_t → z_{t+1}
Decoder: z → s (reconstruction)

7 ensemble models in latent space (not pixel space)

Benefits:

1. Smaller models: Latent 256-dim vs pixel 84×84×3
2. Better dynamics: Learned in abstract space
3. Faster training: 10x faster than pixel models
4. Better planning: Latent trajectories more stable

Implementation Pattern:

class LatentEnsembleDynamics:
    def __init__(self):
        self.encoder = PixelEncoder()  # image → z
        self.decoder = PixelDecoder()  # z → image
        self.models = [LatentDynamics() for _ in range(7)]

    def encode_batch(self, images):
        return self.encoder(images)

    def predict_latent_ensemble(self, z, a):
        """Predict next latent, with uncertainty"""
        predictions = [m(z, a) for m in self.models]
        z_next_mean = torch.stack(predictions).mean(dim=0)
        z_next_std = torch.stack(predictions).std(dim=0)
        return z_next_mean, z_next_std

    def decode_batch(self, z):
        return self.decoder(z)

---

Reward Model Learning

When needed: Visual RL (don't have privileged reward)

Structure:

Reward predictor: (s or z, a) → r
Trained via supervised learning on real transitions

Training:

class RewardModel(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, latent_dim, action_dim):
        self.net = MLP(latent_dim + action_dim, 1)

    def forward(self, z, a):
        za = torch.cat([z, a], dim=-1)
        r = self.net(za)
        return r

    def train_step(self, batch):
        z, a, r_true = batch
        r_pred = self.forward(z, a)
        loss = MSE(r_pred, r_true)
        loss.backward()
        return loss.item()

Key: Train on ground truth rewards from environment.

Integration with MBPO:

• Use learned reward when true reward unavailable
• Use true reward when available (more accurate)

---

Model Selection and Scheduling

Problem: Which model to use for which task?

Solution: Modular Approach

class ModelScheduler:
    def __init__(self):
        self.deterministic = DeterministicModel()  # For planning
        self.stochastic = StochasticModel()  # For uncertainty
        self.ensemble = [DynamicsModel() for _ in range(7)]

    def select_for_planning(self, num_rollouts):
        """Choose model based on phase"""
        if num_rollouts < 100:
            return self.stochastic  # Learn uncertainty
        else:
            return self.ensemble  # Use for planning

    def select_for_training(self):
        return self.deterministic  # Simple, stable

Use Cases:

• Deterministic: Fast training, baseline
• Stochastic: Uncertainty quantification
• Ensemble: Planning with disagreement detection

---

Part 13: Multi-Step Planning Algorithms

Cross-Entropy Method (CEM) for Planning

Idea: Iteratively refine action sequence.

1. Sample N random action sequences
2. Evaluate all (rollout with model)
3. Keep top 10% (elite)
4. Fit Gaussian to elite
5. Sample from Gaussian
6. Repeat 5 times

Implementation:

def cem_plan(s, model, reward_fn, value_fn, k=5, num_samples=100, num_iters=5):
    """Cross-Entropy Method for planning"""
    action_dim = 2  # Example: 2D action
    a_min, a_max = -1.0, 1.0

    # Initialize distribution
    mu = torch.zeros(k, action_dim)
    sigma = torch.ones(k, action_dim)

    for iteration in range(num_iters):
        # Sample candidates
        samples = []
        for _ in range(num_samples):
            actions = (mu + sigma * torch.randn_like(mu)).clamp(a_min, a_max)
            samples.append(actions)

        # Evaluate (rollout)
        returns = []
        for actions in samples:
            s_temp = s
            ret = 0
            for t, a in enumerate(actions):
                s_temp = model(s_temp, a)
                r = reward_fn(s_temp, a)
                ret += (0.99 ** t) * r
            ret += (0.99 ** k) * value_fn(s_temp)
            returns.append(ret)

        # Keep elite (top 10%)
        returns = torch.tensor(returns)
        elite_idx = torch.topk(returns, int(num_samples * 0.1))[1]
        elite_actions = [samples[i] for i in elite_idx]

        # Update distribution
        elite = torch.stack(elite_actions)  # (elite_size, k, action_dim)
        mu = elite.mean(dim=0)
        sigma = elite.std(dim=0) + 0.01  # Add small constant for stability

    return mu[0]  # Return first action of best sequence

Comparison to Random Shooting:

• Random: Simple, parallelizable, needs many samples
• CEM: Iterative refinement, fewer samples, more compute per sample

---

Shooting Methods: iLQR-Like Planning

Idea: Linearize dynamics, solve quadratic problem.

For simple quadratic cost, can find optimal action analytically
Uses: Dynamics Jacobian, Reward Hessian

Simplified Version (iterative refinement):

def ilqr_like_plan(s, model, reward_fn, value_fn, k=5):
    """Iterative refinement of action sequence"""
    actions = torch.randn(k, action_dim)  # Initialize

    for iteration in range(10):
        # Forward pass: evaluate trajectory
        s_traj = [s]
        for t, a in enumerate(actions):
            s_next = model(s_traj[-1], a)
            s_traj.append(s_next)

        # Backward pass: compute gradients
        returns = 0
        for t in range(k - 1, -1, -1):
            r = reward_fn(s_traj[t], actions[t])
            returns = r + 0.99 * returns

            # Gradient w.r.t. action
            grad = torch.autograd.grad(returns, actions[t], retain_graph=True)[0]

            # Update action (gradient ascent)
            actions[t] += 0.01 * grad

        # Clip actions
        actions = actions.clamp(a_min, a_max)

    return actions[0]

When to Use:

• Continuous action space (not discrete)
• Differentiable model (neural network)
• Need fast planning (compute-constrained)

---

Part 14: When NOT to Use Model-Based RL

Red Flags for Model-Based (Use Model-Free Instead)

Flag 1: Perfect Simulator Available

Example: Mujoco, Unity, Atari emulator
Benefit: Unlimited free samples
Model-based cost: Training model + planning
Model-free benefit: Just train policy (simpler)

Flag 2: Task Very Simple

Cartpole, MountainCar (horizon < 50)
Benefit of planning: Minimal (too short)
Cost: Model training
Model-free wins

Flag 3: Compute Limited, Samples Abundant

Example: Atari (free samples from emulator)
Model-based: 30 hours train + plan
Model-free: 5 hours train
Model-free wins on compute

Flag 4: Stochastic Environment (High Noise)

Example: Dice rolling, random collisions
Model must predict distribution (hard)
Model-free: Just stores Q-values (simpler)

Flag 5: Evaluation Metric is Compute Time

Model-based sample efficient but compute-expensive
Model-free faster on wall-clock time
Choose based on metric

---

Part 15: Model-Based + Model-Free Hybrid Approaches

When Both Complement Each Other

Idea: Use model-based for data augmentation, model-free for policy.

Architecture:

Phase 1: Collect real data (model-free exploration)
Phase 2: Train model
Phase 3: Augment data (model-based imagined rollouts)
Phase 4: Train policy on mixed data (model-free algorithm)

MBPO Example:

• Model-free: SAC (learns Q and policy)
• Model-based: Short rollouts for data augmentation
• Hybrid: Best of both

Other Hybrids:

1. Model for Initialization:

   Train model-based policy → Initialize model-free policy
   Fine-tune with model-free (if needed)
   

2. Model for Curriculum:

   Model predicts difficulty → Curriculum learning
   Easy → Hard task progression
   

3. Model for Exploration Bonus:

   Model uncertainty → Exploration bonus
   Curious about uncertain states
   Combines model-based discovery + policy learning
   

---

Part 16: Common Questions and Answers

Q1: Should I train one model or ensemble?

A: Ensemble (4-7 models) provides uncertainty estimates.

• Single model: Fast training, overconfident
• Ensemble: Disagreement detects out-of-distribution states

For production: Ensemble recommended.

---

Q2: How long should rollouts be?

A: k=5-10 for most tasks.

• Shorter (k=1-3): Very safe, but minimal planning
• Medium (k=5-10): MBPO default, good tradeoff
• Longer (k=20+): Error compounds, avoid

Rule of thumb: k = task_horizon / 10

---

Q3: When should I retrain the model?

A: Every N environment steps or when validation loss increases.

• MBPO: Every 1000 steps
• Dreamer: Every episode
• Dyna-Q: Every 10-100 steps

Monitor validation performance.

---

Q4: Model-based or model-free for my problem?

A: Decision tree:

1. Are real samples expensive? → Model-based
2. Do I have perfect simulator? → Model-free
3. Is task very complex (high-dim)? → Model-based (Dreamer)
4. Is compute limited? → Model-free
5. Default → Model-free (simpler, proven)

---

Q5: How do I know if model is good?

A: Metrics:

1. Validation MSE: Low on hold-out test set
2. Rollout Accuracy: Predict 10-step trajectory, compare to real
3. Policy Performance: Does planning with model improve policy?
4. Ensemble Disagreement: Should be low in training dist, high outside

---

Part 17: Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary of Key Concepts

1. World Models:

• Learn p(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t) from data
• Pixel vs latent space (latent better for high-dim)
• Deterministic vs stochastic

2. Planning:

• MPC: Optimize actions at each step
• Shooting: Sample trajectories
• CEM: Iterative refinement
• Short rollouts (k=5-10) + value bootstrap

3. Algorithms:

• Dyna-Q: Real + imagined transitions
• MBPO: Short rollouts + policy optimization
• Dreamer: Latent imagination + policy learning

4. Error Handling:

• Ensemble for uncertainty
• Early stopping on disagreement
• Distribution shift via retraining
• Value bootstrapping for tail uncertainty

5. When to Use:

• Real samples expensive → Model-based
• Compute cheap → Model-free
• Multi-task → Model-based (reuse)
• Offline RL → Model-based (planning from fixed data)

Best Practices

1. Start simple: Model-free first, model-based only if justified
2. Use ensemble: 4-7 models, not single
3. Keep rollouts short: k=5-10, not 50
4. Retrain frequently: Monitor performance
5. Validate carefully: Hold-out test set, policy performance
6. Understand your domain: Real samples expensive? Complex? Sparse reward?

Next Steps

After this skill:

• Implementation: value-based-methods, policy-gradient-methods, actor-critic-methods
• Advanced: offline-RL (planning from fixed data), curiosity-driven (exploration via model), sim-to-real (domain randomization)
• Evaluation: rl-evaluation (proper benchmarking, statistics)

---

Congratulations! You now understand model-based RL from foundations through implementation.

You can:

• Implement Dyna-Q for discrete control
• Implement MBPO for continuous control
• Handle model errors appropriately
• Choose the right algorithm for your problem
• Debug model-based learning issues
• Design robust world models

Key insight: Model-based RL trades sample complexity for model error. Success requires short rollouts, value bootstrapping, proper error handling, and appropriate algorithm selection.

Go build something amazing!