Cited by 25AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningReinforcement Learning in RoboticsPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

WorldCoder, a Model-Based LLM Agent: Building World Models by Writing Code and Interacting with the Environment

Open access
Tang, Hao, Key, Darren, Ellis, Kevin·2024·Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37

Abstract

We give a model-based agent that builds a Python program representing its knowledge of the world based on its interactions with the environment. The world model tries to explain its interactions, while also being optimistic about what reward it can achieve. We define this optimism as a logical constraint between a program and a planner. We study our agent on gridworlds, and on task planning, finding our approach is more sample-efficient compared to deep RL, more compute-efficient compared to ReAct-style agents, and that it can transfer its knowledge across environments by editing its code.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

WorldCoder is a model-based LLM agent that learns a Python program implementing the transition and reward functions of its environment by iteratively prompting GPT-4 to write and debug code against replayed experience, then plans with that program. It adds an "optimism under uncertainty" constraint (φ₂) that requires the learned program to entail a plan reaching positive reward, which drives goal-directed exploration and zero-shot instruction following.

Key findings

  • On Sokoban, the agent builds a world model over the first 50 actions and generalizes to levels with more boxes; ReAct, with the same pretrained knowledge, succeeds on only 15% ± 8% of basic levels, and deep RL takes >1 million steps to learn 2-box Sokoban.
  • Compute asymptotics differ: after front-loading 400k LLM tokens (about $15), WorldCoder issues further actions with no LLM queries, whereas ReAct-style agents call the LLM at every action.
  • The optimism objective φ₂ is necessary in sparse-reward settings: on MiniGrid-UnlockPickup, PPO failed after 3×10⁸ actions and WorldCoder failed without φ₂, but with φ₂ it learned the correct world model in no more than 100 actions; on AlfWorld, φ₂ was necessary for any non-zero performance.
  • Theorem 2.4: with an optimal planner over a model satisfying φ₁ ∧ φ₂ and a true MDP inside the model class, the maximum number of actions to reach the goal is D_{S,A,T} × (K_{T×R} + 1), i.e., polynomial in MDP diameter and logical dimensionality.
  • Transfer across environments works by editing code: on MiniGrid, transfer helps solve new environments faster, and φ₂ enables zero-shot generalization to new natural-language goals (env 3); a "prompt4reward" ablation that just asks GPT-4 for a new reward function struggles to follow new instructions.

Methods

  • Design: a Contextual MDP (C, S, A, M) with deterministic, episodic dynamics fixed across goals; states are sets of objects with string-valued fields (x, y, type-specific fields), and the world model is a Python tuple (T, R) with T: S×A→S and R: C→(S×A×S→R×{0,1}).
  • Learning: program synthesis by LLM refinement — GPT-4 is prompted with a random subset of the replay buffer D to propose code, then backprompted with inconsistent data points to debug until φ₁ (fit data) ∧ φ₂ (optimism) hold; REx selects which program to refine next using heuristic h (Eq. 3) and a bandit over refinement counts.
  • Agent loop: ε-greedy exploration (ε = 5%), learning begins after MINDATASIZE = 10 actions, planning via depth-limited value iteration (simple domains) or MCTS with a BM25-based heuristic (AlfWorld); evaluated on Sokoban, MiniGrid, and AlfWorld, with PPO and DreamerV3 as deep RL baselines.

Limitations

  • Stated: the method assumes deterministic dynamics (authors suggest probabilistic program synthesis as a fix); states must be symbolic and discrete while the real world is messy and continuous (pretrained object detectors, multimodal models, or neurosymbolic programs are suggested); and knowledge growth/transfer uses only a basic debug-prompting mechanism rather than a reusable library of subroutines.
  • Evident from the text: the paper's own checklist reports that code and data are not openly released ("We will prepare code for the public later due to time constraints"), and the Sokoban evaluation explicitly does not target the hardest levels (5+ boxes), which the authors attribute to planning difficulty rather than the world model.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.52202/079017-2243

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 9 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    Without transfer, more episodes of exploration are needed to collect experience to build a good world model.

    “Without transfer, more episodes of exploration are needed to collect experience to build a good world model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    After front-loading 400k LLM tokens (about $15), WorldCoder can issue as many actions as needed without subsequent LLM queries.

    “Our approach has different asymptotics: after front-loading 400k LLM tokens (about $15), it can issue as many actions as needed without subsequent LLM queries (Fig. 3C).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Each replay buffer data set D can be represented by its mutually independent data subset D⊥⊥T×R from the perspective of finding the correct world model.

    “Lemma α: Each replay buffer data set, D, can be represented by its mutually independent data subset, D ⊥ ⊥T ×R , from the perspective of finding the correct world model, i.e.,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    Agents that use the extra optimism under uncertainty objective can correct the imagined world model given the newly collected data after the efficient exploration.

    “• and correct the imagined world model given the newly collected data after the efficient exploration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Random exploration needs exponentially more actions to find this counter-example in the worst case.

    “Random exploration needs exponentially more number of actions to find this counter-example in the worst case.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The environment is an episodic MDP (S, A, T, R, γ).
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The agent does not have free reset to all possible states, so it must go through trajectories from the initial state to each target state.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The environments are deterministic and have sparse rewards.
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The logical dimensionality K⊥⊥M is at most |M|; the maximum size of a mutually independent data set with respect to a solution space is smaller than the size of the solution space.

    “Lemma A.3.K ⊥ ⊥M ≤ |M|, i.e., the maximum size of the mutually independent data sets w.r.t. to a solution space is smaller than the size of the solution space.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The MCTS algorithm is designed for general planning problems and is not efficient enough for deterministic environments with sparse rewards, such as Alfworld in our experiments.

    “However, the MCTS algorithm is designed for general planning problems and is not efficient enough for deterministic environments with sparse rewards, such as Alfworld in our experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The environments are deterministic and have sparse rewards.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The world model that satisfies φ1 ∧ φ2 is either correct or is efficient in guiding the agent to find a counter-example of the current world model.

    “It shows that the world model that satisfies ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 is either correct or is efficient in guiding the agent to find a counter-example of the current world model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The prompt4reward ablation struggles to follow new instructions, showing the importance of φ2 in correcting mistakes made by the LLM when generating reward functions.

    “Surprisingly, this ablation struggles to follow new instructions (e.g., transfer from env 2→3 in Fig. 4A), showing the importance of ϕ 2 in correcting mistakes made by the LLM when generating reward functions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Typically the agent solves the AlfWorld task in the first episode, but requires around 20 exploratory steps to get reward, with subsequent episodes serving to make small corrections to the world model.

    “Typically the agent solves the task in the first episode, but requires around 20 exploratory steps to get reward, with subsequent episodes serving to make small corrections to the world model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On Sokoban, the optimism under uncertainty objective has little effect because Sokoban has a dense reward structure that allows easy learning through random exploration.

    “On Sokoban, the optimism under uncertainty objective (ϕ 2 , orange curves in Fig. 3B) has little effect: Sokoban has a dense reward structure that allows easy learning through random exploration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In AlfWorld, WorldCoder learns models of picking up and placing objects, and then improves its model by learning how to use cooking appliances such as refrigerators and stoves.

    “In Fig. 5 we find that our method learns models of picking up and placing objects, and then improves its model by learning how to use cooking appliances such as refrigerators and stoves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    WorldCoder continues to learn in the teleportation portal Sokoban variant, including modeling the blocking behavior of the teleportation gates, and learns to use the teleporters to more rapidly solve levels.

    “Our agent continues to be able to learn in this environment, including modeling the blocking behavior of the teleportation gates, and learns to use the teleporters to more rapidly solve levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Given the lemmas, |D(t+D_S)⊥⊥T×R| ≥ |D(t)⊥⊥T×R| + 1, and therefore |D(D_S ×(K⊥⊥T×R +1))⊥⊥T×R| ≥ K⊥⊥T×R + 1 + D(0) ≥ K⊥⊥T×R + 1 > K⊥⊥T×R.

    “Given these lemmas, we have |D (t+D S ) ⊥ ⊥T ×R | ≥ |D (t) ⊥ ⊥T ×R | + 1 and therefore |D D S ×(K ⊥ ⊥T ×R +1) ⊥ ⊥T ×R | ≥ K ⊥ ⊥T ×R + 1 + D (0) ≥ K ⊥ ⊥T ×R + 1 > K ⊥ ⊥T ×R .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    WorldCoder without the optimism objective failed in UnlockPickup.

    “Our method failed without the optimism objective as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The resulting Sokoban code is human-understandable and generalizes to solving levels with more boxes.

    “The resulting code is human-understandable (Appendix D), and generalizes to solving levels with more boxes (Fig. 3B).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The new learning objective generates goal-driven exploratory behavior, which can reduce by orders of magnitude the number of environment interactions needed to obtain reward.

    “We show theoretically and empirically that this learning objective generates goal-driven exploratory behavior, which can reduce by orders of magnitude the number of environment interactions needed to obtain reward”
    • Also stated in: § A Theoretical analysis of Sample Efficiency using optimism under uncertainty (ϕ 2 ) · boosted
      “The optimism under uncertainty objective (ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 in Sec. 2) is much more sample efficient than the traditional data-consistency objective (ϕ 1 ) as shown in Figure 4 in our experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Optimism under uncertainty (φ2) helps in non-transfer settings by promoting goal-directed exploration, and absent transfer, it is only with φ2 that WorldCoder can solve the harder Minigrid environments.

    “However, optimism under uncertainty (ϕ 2 ) helps in non-transfer setting by promoting goal-directed exploration, and in fact, absent transfer, it is only with ϕ 2 that WorldCoder can solve the harder environments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Deep RL takes more than 1 million steps to learn 2-box Sokoban.

    “Deep RL takes >1 million steps to learn 2-box Sokoban.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Optimism is defined as a logical constraint between a program and a planner.

    “We define this optimism as a logical constraint between a program and a planner.”
    • Also stated in: § 2.3 Understanding optimism under uncertainty · plain
      “We contribute a new instantiation of that principle as a logical constraint between a program and a planner, and which we show can be made compatible with LLM-guided program generation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Upon observing a new context c, the constraint φ2 is violated, which triggers debugging R so that it covers c, subject to the constraint that R(c) allows reaching a goal state.

    “Upon observing a new context c, the constraint ϕ 2 is violated.This triggers debugging R so that it covers c, subject to the constraint that R(c) allows reaching a goal state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    If the LLM makes a mistake in predicting the reward function, the agent can recover by subsequent rounds of program synthesis, which update R(c) based on interactions with the environment.

    “If the LLM makes a mistake in predicting the reward function, then the agent can recover by subsequent rounds of program synthesis, which update R(c) based on interactions with the environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The paper reports error bars based on 3 random seeds, with default 95% confidence intervals.

    “We still show the error bars with 3 random seeds as stated.”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “The error bars are default as 95% CI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    WorldCoder cannot solve very hard Sokoban levels (e.g., 5+ boxes), but this is an artifact of the difficulty of planning and could be addressed by plugging the world model into other techniques.

    “While the system cannot solve very hard Sokoban levels (eg, 5+ boxes), that is an artifact of the difficulty of planning, and could be addressed by plugging the world model into any of the techniques cited above.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Constructing a world model satisfying φ1 ∧ φ2 is a program synthesis problem.

    “Constructing a world model satisfying ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 is a program synthesis problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The polynomial sample complexity is possible because the agent systematically finds independent data points, which serve as counter-examples to the agent's current model; at most K_{⊥⊥T×R} such counterexamples are needed, each requiring at most D_{S,A,T} actions.

    “Intuitively, the polynomial sample complexity is possible because the agent systematically finds independent data points, which serve as counter-examples to the agent's current model.At most K ⊥ ⊥T ×R such counterexamples are needed, each requiring at most D S,A,T actions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) is a classic heuristic search algorithm and has achieved speculative success in difficult problems such as Go.

    “Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [12,5] is a classic heuristic search algorithm and has achieved speculative success in difficult problems such as Go [58].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [12]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [5]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [58]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Given two world models both consistent with observed data, the agent should prefer a model which implies it is possible to get positive reward, effectively being optimistic in the face of uncertainty about world dynamics.

    “Given two world models, both consistent with the observed data, the agent should prefer a model which implies it is possible to get positive reward, effectively being optimistic in the face of uncertainty about world dynamics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    All returns of partial trajectories are zero, and once a trajectory gets a positive return, the goal state is found and the trajectory from the initial state to this goal state should be immediately returned.

    “All returns of partial trajectories are zero and, once a trajectory gets a positive return, we find the goal state and should immediately return the trajectory from the initial state to this goal state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The environments are deterministic and have sparse rewards.
    • Rests on an assumption: The environments have no randomness and no partial rewards.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When planning with a world model that satisfies φ1 ∧ φ2, there are only two possible outcomes: either the model is correct and the agent achieves the goal, or the model is incorrect and the agent must find a counter-example and gain more knowledge.

    “When planning with a world model that satisfies the ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2 there are only two possible outcomes: • Either the model is correct: the agent achieves the goal successfully; • Or the model is incorrect: the agent then must find a counter-example to its world model's prediction and gain more knowledge of the environment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Refinement allows computationally efficient transfer between environments, because a new world model can be built by refining an old one instead of programming it from scratch.

    “Refinement also allows computationally efficient transfer between environments, because a new world model can be built by refining an old one, instead of programming it from scratch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The world model tries to explain its interactions while also being optimistic about what reward it can achieve.

    “The world model tries to explain its interactions, while also being optimistic about what reward it can achieve.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
27 of 27
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A goal is given in natural language.

    “First, we assume a goal is given in natural language.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Environments are deterministic.

    “Second, we restrict ourselves to deterministic environments”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Environment dynamics are fixed across goals.

    “and assume that environment dynamics are fixed across goals.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The MDP is episodic with the current episode terminating upon reaching the goal.

    “Third, we assume an episodic MDP with the current episode terminating upon reaching the goal.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The transition function does not depend on the context.

    “The transition function does not depend on the context.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The low-data regime holds, so there will be multiple world models consistent with the data.

    “Assuming the low-data regime, there will be multiple world models consistent with the data”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Similar goals have similar reward structures.

    “This retrieval strategy assumes similar goals have similar reward structures”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The true MDP is in the agent's model class (T ∈ T and R ∈ R).

    “and that the true MDP is in the agent's model class: T ∈ T and R ∈ R.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    An optimal planner operates over the world model.

    “Assume an agent acting according to an optimal planner operating over world model ( T , R) ∈ T × R satisfying ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The LLM possesses fuzzy prior knowledge of how the world might be, together with programming skill to code and debug a transition function.

    “we require the LLM to possess fuzzy prior knowledge of how the world might be, together with the programming skill to code and debug a transition function.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    World models allow reasoning in radically new situations by spending more time planning different actions, and accomplishing novel goals by just changing the reward function.

    “In theory, world models have many advantages: they allow reasoning in radically new situations by spending more time planning different actions, and accomplishing novel goals by just changing the reward function.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The environment is an episodic MDP (S, A, T, R, γ).

    “Assume an episodic MDP (S, A, T, R, γ).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The agent acts according to an optimal planner operating over a world model (T, R) ∈ T × R satisfying ϕ1 ∧ ϕ2.

    “Assume an agent acting according to an optimal planner operating over world model ( T , R) ∈ T × R satisfying ϕ 1 ∧ ϕ 2”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The true MDP is in the agent's model class: T ∈ T and R ∈ R.

    “and that the true MDP is in the agent's model class: T ∈ T and R ∈ R.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The agent does not have free reset to all possible states, so it must go through trajectories from the initial state to each target state.

    “(Note that we do not assume free reset to all possible states, so the agent needs to go through the trajectories from the initial state to each target state.)”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The environments are deterministic and have sparse rewards.

    “We thus modify the algorithm to make it faster by making use of the additional assumptions of the environments: deterministic and sparse rewards.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The more similar the partial trajectory is to the goal, the more relevant the current state is to the goal, and thus the closer the current state is to the goal states.

    “Intuitively, the assumption is that the more similar the partial trajectory is to the goal, the more relevant the current state is to the goal, and thus the closer the current state is to the goal states.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The environments have no randomness and no partial rewards.

    “Noticing that there is no randomness and no partial rewards in the environments, roll-outs are not cost-effective in the usage of simulations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior LLM agents consume LLM calls/tokens at every action.

    “Our method has different asymptotic LLM cost compared to prior LLM agents, which consume LLM calls/tokens at every action.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The agent has the ability to toggle regardless of what is in front of it.

    “# We assume that the agent have the ability to toggle, regardless of what is in front of him because the experiences provided do not dictate otherwise.”
20 of 20

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • WorldCoder introduces a model-based interaction framework in which the agent explicitly writes and updates executable world models represented as Python programs.

    “WorldCoder [36] further introduces a model-based interaction framework in which the agent explicitly writes and updates executable world models represented as Python programs.”

    From Code as Agent Harness (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • MCTS calls BACKUP without its required heuristic value

    Minor

    The search procedure computes a heuristic value but calls `BACKUP` with only the node. The defined `BACKUP` function requires both the node and that value.

1 of 1

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Peter Auer. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Nov):397-422, 2002.
  2. Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Ian Osband, and Rémi Munos. Minimax regret bounds for reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 263-272. PMLR, 2017.
  3. Rémi Coulom. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in monte-carlo tree search. In International conference on computers and games, pages 72-83. Springer, 2006.
  4. Luc De Raedt, Angelika Kimmig, and Hannu Toivonen. Problog: a probabilistic prolog and its application in link discovery. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI'07, page 2468-2473, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007.
  5. Dieqiao Feng, Carla P Gomes, and Bart Selman. A novel automated curricu- lum strategy to solve hard sokoban planning instances. In H. Larochelle, M. Ran- zato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 3141-3152.
  6. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ 2051bd70fc110a2208bdbd4a743e7f79-Paper.pdf.
  7. Noah D. Goodman, Vikash K. Mansinghka, Daniel Roy, Keith Bonawitz, and Joshua B. Tenen- baum. Church: a language for generative models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Confer- ence on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'08, page 220-229, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2008. AUAI Press. ISBN 0974903949.
  8. David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, pages 2451-2463.
  9. Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Mohammad Norouzi, and Jimmy Ba. Mastering atari with discrete world models. ICLR, 2021.
  10. Chi Jin, Zhuoran Yang, Zhaoran Wang, and Michael I Jordan. Provably efficient reinforcement learning with linear function approximation. In Conference on learning theory, pages 2137- 2143. PMLR, 2020.
  11. Kalle Kujanpää, Joni Pajarinen, and Alexander Ilin. Hybrid search for efficient planning with completeness guarantees. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=bY0c46ZtXa.
  12. Kenneth Li, Aspen K Hopkins, David Bau, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. ICLR, 2023.
  13. Qinghua Liu, Praneeth Netrapalli, Csaba Szepesvari, and Chi Jin. Optimistic mle: A generic model-based algorithm for partially observable sequential decision making. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 363-376, 2023.
  14. Yecheng Jason Ma, William Liang, Guanzhi Wang, De-An Huang, Osbert Bastani, Dinesh Jayaraman, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: Arxiv-2310.12931, 2023.
  15. Jiayuan Mao, Tomás Lozano-Pérez, Josh Tenenbaum, and Leslie Kaelbling. Pdsketch: Inte- grated domain programming, learning, and planning. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 35:36972-36984, 2022.
  16. Vincent Micheli, Eloi Alonso, and François Fleuret. Transformers are sample-efficient world models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=vhFu1Acb0xb.
  17. Kolby Nottingham, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Alane Suhr, Yejin Choi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Sameer Singh, and Roy Fox. Do Embodied Agents Dream of Pixelated Sheep: Embodied Decision Making using Language Guided World Modelling. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023.
  18. Antonin Raffin, Ashley Hill, Adam Gleave, Anssi Kanervisto, Maximilian Ernestus, and Noah Dormann. Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(268):1-8, 2021. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/ 20-1364.html.
  19. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389, 2009.
  20. Stuart J Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Pearson, 2016.
  21. Feras Saad. Scalable Structure Learning, Inference, and Analysis with Probabilistic Programs. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2022.
  22. Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Thomas Hubert, Karen Simonyan, Laurent Sifre, Si- mon Schmitt, Arthur Guez, Edward Lockhart, Demis Hassabis, Thore Graepel, et al. Mastering atari, go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature, 588(7839):604-609, 2020.
  23. David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driess- che, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. Mas- tering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature, 529(7587):484-489, 2016.
  24. Tom Silver and Rohan Chitnis. Pddlgym: Gym environments from pddl problems. In Interna- tional Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) PRL Workshop, 2020. URL https://github.com/tomsilver/pddlgym.
  25. Sean R Sinclair, Siddhartha Banerjee, and Christina Lee Yu. Adaptive discretization for episodic reinforcement learning in metric spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 3(3):1-44, 2019.
  26. Haotian Sun, Yuchen Zhuang, Lingkai Kong, Bo Dai, and Chao Zhang. Adaplanner: Adaptive planning from feedback with language models. NeurIPS, 2023.
  27. Richard S Sutton. Integrated architectures for learning, planning, and reacting based on approximating dynamic programming. In Machine learning proceedings 1990, pages 216-224. Elsevier, 1990.
  28. Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press, 2018.
  29. Hao Tang and Kevin Ellis. From perception to programs: Regularize, overparameterize, and amortize. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023.
  30. Hao Tang, Keya Hu, Jin Peng Zhou, Sicheng Zhong, Wei-Long Zheng, Xujie Si, and Kevin Ellis. Code repair with llms gives an exploration-exploitation tradeoff. arXiv, 2024.
  31. Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. On the planning abilities of large language models -a critical investigation. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=X6dEqXIsEW.
  32. Abhinav Verma, Vijayaraghavan Murali, Rishabh Singh, Pushmeet Kohli, and Swarat Chaudhuri. Programmatically interpretable reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5045-5054. PMLR, 2018.
  33. Abhinav Verma, Hoang Le, Yisong Yue, and Swarat Chaudhuri. Imitation-projected pro- grammatic reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
  34. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press, 1980.
  35. Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: Arxiv-2305.16291, 2023.
  36. Huaxiaoyue Wang, Gonzalo Gonzalez-Pumariega, Yash Sharma, and Sanjiban Choudhury. Demo2code: From summarizing demonstrations to synthesizing code via extended chain-of- thought. NeurIPS, 2023.
  37. Chenyang Wu, Tianci Li, Zongzhang Zhang, and Yang Yu. Bayesian optimistic optimization: Optimistic exploration for model-based reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:14210-14223, 2022.
  38. Jiannan Xiang, Tianhua Tao, Yi Gu, Tianmin Shu, Zirui Wang, Zichao Yang, and Zhiting Hu. Language models meet world models: Embodied experiences enhance language models. NeurIPS, 2023.
  39. Zirui Zhao, Wee Sun Lee, and David Hsu. Large language models as commonsense knowledge for large-scale task planning. NeurIPS, 2023.
  40. Feiyu Zhu and Reid Simmons. Bootstrapping cognitive agents with a large language model. In AAAI, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, H., Key, D., & Ellis, K.
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37
Published
2024
Pages
70148-70212
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415796843
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2
FWCI
4.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2310350)
  • Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
LLM agents, world models, code generation, agent-environment interaction, model-based reasoning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-05.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review