Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 157 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 31 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 97 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 218 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 450 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 35 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Offline Reinforcement Learning with Causal Structured World Models (2206.01474v1)

Published 3 Jun 2022 in cs.LG and stat.ML

Abstract: Model-based methods have recently shown promising for offline reinforcement learning (RL), aiming to learn good policies from historical data without interacting with the environment. Previous model-based offline RL methods learn fully connected nets as world-models that map the states and actions to the next-step states. However, it is sensible that a world-model should adhere to the underlying causal effect such that it will support learning an effective policy generalizing well in unseen states. In this paper, We first provide theoretical results that causal world-models can outperform plain world-models for offline RL by incorporating the causal structure into the generalization error bound. We then propose a practical algorithm, oFfline mOdel-based reinforcement learning with CaUsal Structure (FOCUS), to illustrate the feasibility of learning and leveraging causal structure in offline RL. Experimental results on two benchmarks show that FOCUS reconstructs the underlying causal structure accurately and robustly. Consequently, it performs better than the plain model-based offline RL algorithms and other causal model-based RL algorithms.

Citations (16)

Summary

  • The paper introduces FOCUS, a causal-based offline RL algorithm that reduces generalization errors by incorporating structured world models.
  • It employs KCI tests to learn and integrate causal structures into model-based RL frameworks, enhancing prediction and policy evaluation.
  • Experiments on benchmarks like Toy Car Driving and MuJoCo demonstrate that FOCUS outperforms non-causal methods in robustness and accuracy.

Offline Reinforcement Learning with Causal Structured World Models

Introduction

The paper "Offline Reinforcement Learning with Causal Structured World Models" introduces the FOCUS algorithm, a model-based offline Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework that incorporates causal structures into world models to enhance generalization from historical data without active environment interaction. The efficacy of causal modeling is grounded in theoretical insights demonstrating reduced generalization error bounds. The work proposes FOCUS, illustrating its practical implementation and evaluating it against existing model-based RL approaches.

Theoretical Foundations

Theoretically, the paper establishes that causal world-models reduce generalization errors compared to non-causal counterparts by addressing spurious variable dependencies. It quantifies this advantage in terms of model prediction and policy evaluation error bounds. For prediction, the error bound is expressed as:

E(X,Y)[(Y^Y)X]Xmaxλi(γi+1)+ϵc\mathbb{E}_{(X,Y)}[(|\hat{Y} - Y|) \mid X] \leq X_{max}|\lambda_i|(|\gamma_i| + 1) + \epsilon_c

Here, λi\lambda_i represents the coefficient affecting spurious variable influence, γi\gamma_i the strength of correlation with spurious variables, and ϵc\epsilon_c the causal prediction noise.

Algorithm Design

FOCUS employs causal discovery techniques (specifically KCI tests) to construct causal structures from offline datasets. The essential steps involve:

  1. Causal Structure Learning: Utilizing KCI tests to assess conditional independence among variables, forming a causal matrix G\mathcal{G}.
  2. Structural Integration: Integrating learned structures into model-based RL frameworks, such as MOPO, to adjust model rollouts and improve policy learning. Figure 1

    Figure 1: The architecture of FOCUS. Given offline data, FOCUS learns a p-value matrix by KCI test and then derives the causal structure by selecting a p-value threshold.

Experimental Evaluation

Experiments across benchmarks such as Toy Car Driving and MuJoCo environments underscore FOCUS's efficacy:

  • Causal Structure Learning: FOCUS achieved high accuracy and robustness in causal graph recovery, outperforming online-based causal learning methods like LNCM, particularly with diverse datasets.
  • Policy Performance: Demonstrated significant returns across various data distributions, with marked improvements over models lacking causal integration. Notably, causal-informed policies showed reduced sensitivity to dataset distribution biases. Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Comparison of FOCUS and the baselines in the two benchmarks.

Implications and Future Work

FOCUS's design illustrates the practical advantages of leveraging causal structures in offline RL settings, emphasizing the potential for improved generalization and robustness in policy performance. Future research avenues include refining causal discovery methods within RL contexts and exploring causal structure uncertainties in complex environments.

Conclusion

The integration of causal structures into offline model-based RL, as exemplified by FOCUS, presents a promising path towards enhanced model generalization, allowing RL systems to derive more reliable policies from static datasets. This research contributes a foundational understanding for further explorations into causal reinforcement learning frameworks.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a single, consolidated list of unresolved issues that future work could address to strengthen the paper’s theoretical foundations, algorithmic design, and empirical validation.

  • Extend the theoretical results beyond the linear case to nonlinear dynamics and function classes (e.g., neural networks), and provide corresponding generalization and policy evaluation error bounds that match the model class used in FOCUS.
  • Derive theory and bounds for the general (multi-dimensional) case rather than relying on 1D simplifications, and make the constants in the bounds interpretable and empirically measurable.
  • Provide identifiability conditions under which the proposed causal discovery recovers the true graph from purely observational offline RL data; explicitly state and test assumptions such as causal sufficiency, faithfulness, stationarity, and absence of unobserved confounders.
  • Quantify and propagate uncertainty in the learned causal structure to policy learning (e.g., via Bayesian posteriors over graphs, soft masks, or robust optimization), and analyze the impact of graph mis-specification on performance and safety.
  • Specify and justify the procedure for selecting the KCI test significance threshold p*, including multiple-testing corrections (e.g., FDR control), Type I/II error trade-offs, and adaptive thresholding under varying sample sizes.
  • Analyze the sample complexity and consistency of kernel-based conditional independence (KCI) tests under high-dimensional conditioning sets (conditioning on “all other variables at time t”), and propose dimensionality reduction or regularization strategies when KCI becomes unreliable.
  • Evaluate scalability of the causal discovery step: characterize computational cost as a function of state/action dimensionality, number of tests, and dataset size; provide practical heuristics to reduce O(n2) testing and kernel matrix costs for large-scale offline RL.
  • Assess robustness of causal discovery under mixed-policy datasets and selection bias; characterize how heterogeneity of behavior policies (and their support) affects CI tests and graph orientation, and propose corrections (e.g., inverse propensity weighting, front-door/back-door adjustments).
  • Clarify how actions are treated in conditional variable selection (both at time t and t+1), and analyze whether the proposed “condition on t, not on t+1” principle remains valid when actions intervene on states, rewards, or other actions.
  • Incorporate reward modeling and its causal structure explicitly; paper spurious variables in the reward function and their effect on policy evaluation bounds and conservative offline RL objectives.
  • Test the claimed invariance/generalization benefits of causal world-models under controlled out-of-distribution shifts and interventions (e.g., environment changes, policy changes, noise regimes), not just mixtures of offline datasets; report whether causal graphs maintain predictive invariance across domains.
  • Measure and report the quantities appearing in the theory (e.g., spurious variable density R_spu and correlation strength λ_max) from data, and empirically correlate them with observed policy evaluation errors to validate the bound’s practical relevance.
  • Provide head-to-head comparisons with additional offline MBRL baselines (e.g., COMBO, MOReL, MBOP, MBPO) and state-of-the-art model-free offline RL methods, to isolate the benefits of causal structure versus pessimism/uncertainty mechanisms.
  • Compare causal discovery approaches beyond KCI/PC-style orientation (e.g., GES, NOTEARS, DirectLiNGAM, nonparametric additive noise models), and quantify accuracy/efficiency/robustness trade-offs across methods.
  • Address partial observability and latent variables: extend FOCUS to POMDPs or incorporate latent causal discovery, and analyze how hidden confounders or unmeasured state components affect both structure learning and policy performance.
  • Investigate multi-step and higher-order temporal dependencies (edges beyond t→t+1), including second-order dynamics and delayed effects; assess whether restricting edges to immediate next-step causes underfits real physics in MuJoCo-like tasks.
  • Examine the interaction between causal masking and model capacity: quantify when masking reduces under/overfitting, and provide criteria or diagnostics to avoid removing necessary predictive inputs (false negatives in graph learning).
  • Provide a principled treatment of sensor/observation frequency issues noted in MuJoCo (e.g., aliasing, time discretization); offer guidelines or preprocessing for time series that improve causal discovery reliability.
  • Detail KCI hyperparameter choices (kernels, bandwidths), computational budgets, and implementation specifics; report sensitivity analyses to these settings and provide reproducible code and experiment seeds.
  • Revisit fairness of the LNCM baseline adaptation to offline RL (or include more appropriate offline causal baselines), ensuring methodological alignment and avoiding confounds in comparative conclusions.
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.