On a reproduction of LeWorldModel on TwoRoom the authors show the binding constraint is the planner's objective instead, and on a reproduction of LeWorldModel on TwoRoom they show the binding constraint is the planner's objective instead.
Abstract
Latent world models are judged by how well they predict, so when planning fails at long horizons the natural reading is that the predictor degrades. On a reproduction of LeWorldModel on TwoRoom we show the binding constraint is the planner's objective instead. The predictor is not the limit: its imagined state seventy-five environment steps ahead is still only 0.189 as wrong as assuming the world froze, while the planner never imagines beyond twenty-five. The objective is. Cross-entropy-method planning minimises squared latent distance, which tracks true distance at r = 0.426, saturates by about eighty arena units and decreases beyond a hundred and twenty, so moving away from the goal can lower the cost. The information is present throughout: a ridge probe recovers position from the frozen embedding at R^2 0.9922. The pathology is the method's, not one reimplementation's. It is present in the authors'released weights, and across four checkpoints long-horizon success rank-orders exactly with metric quality and inversely with prediction accuracy. Replacing only the objective, with nothing retrained and no GPU, lifts goals reached at offset 100 from 26.0% to 98.0%, equals the 98.0% at offset 25, and reaches 92.0% under a third of the budget: planning stops depending on the horizon. The best cost is not the most accurate. A head learned from frame separation alone predicts spatial distance worse than a position probe (r = 0.819 against 0.9897) yet plans better, charging 24% more to cross the environment's dividing wall where squared latent distance charges 4% less. It has learned reachability, not proximity.
It is proved that the planner's suboptimality is bounded by twice this discrepancy between the predicted and the true plan-cost at the plan the planner commits to, whereas the data-averaged prediction error neither bounds nor tracks it.
Hanzhe You, Yonggang Zhang, Maohao Ran et al.· arXiv.org· 2 citations
World models let robots imagine possible futures, but exploiting this capability for real-time control is bottlenecked by a representation misalignment: the generative model and the planner operate on decoupled manifolds, so the planner has no shared structure to search over and must instead decode every candidate back into high-dimensional pixel space to evaluate it. This decoding step is a major obstacle to real-time control on physical hardware. In this paper, we present Hydra, a discrete World Action Model that closes this gap by moving the planner, both the sampler and the evaluator, inside the model. Hydra establishes a unified latent manifold over visual states, physical poses, and control actions, then compresses this manifold through modality-specific Vector-Quantized bottlenecks into discrete vocabularies of kinodynamic intents and visual states. Because candidates are now drawn directly from this shared manifold, sampling is informed by the model's own understanding of the observation rather than proposed blind, and evaluation happens natively within the discrete space: candidates are ranked by a Kinematic-Perceptual Cost, without ever decoding to pixels. We term this Discrete Latent Planning (DLP). Because planning over discrete intents alone cannot supply the smooth, continuous commands physical actuation requires, Hydra pairs DLP with conditional Flow Matching, which maps each selected intent to a continuous trajectory for execution. Evaluated on two physical robotic platforms, Hydra outperforms state-of-the-art world models in goal-directed planning, while matching or exceeding the closed-loop execution capabilities of leading reactive foundation policies.
Mohammad Nazeri, Alexandyr Card, S. Huber et al.· 0 citations
To the knowledge, RP1 is the first method to fully learn how to improve multi-step plans and can be trained independently of and attached to any pretrained latent world model.
VisualPatchWorld is introduced, which represents world dynamics as code and first selects a qualitative dynamical form with short active probes, then fits that form's free parameters from recorded state-action traces by minimizing multi-step prediction error.
A central premise of latent world models is that predicting the future forces a representation to internalize the physics of its environment. Which physical quantities does a trained latent actually contain, and what decides this? We answer with controlled interventions in POKEWORLD, an interactive environment whose visually identical objects hide mass, drag, and contact stiffness. A certificate-gated protocol first certifies each parameter as recoverable from raw observations, then measures whether it enters the latent, so a null result can be attributed to the objective rather than to the environment. The resulting identifiability map has two organizing mechanisms and one frontier. Inputs limit what can be known, while prediction targets decide what is retained. Stiffness enters the latent only when touch is forecast ($R^2=0.50$, compared with $-0.02$ when the same signal is merely fused into the input), and under single-step prediction a vision-only latent discards even perfectly visible object state. Drag marks the frontier. It carries a recoverability certificate of 0.89 yet plateaus near 0.13 under every deterministic prediction objective we test, while a supervised head on the same trunk reaches 0.45. Parameters whose readout is slow and ratio-type under the sensed coordinates fall outside what these objectives acquire. On RH20T, an input-target factorial across scaling curves reproduces both mechanisms across two robots and 4,258 episodes. Every arm missing information or prediction pressure stays flat over a fivefold data range, and only the full multimodal objective forecasts force beyond a persistence baseline, with held-out gains that grow with scale. Objective structure determines which physical parameters a latent acquires, and additional data improves only the parameters it already acquires.
The mechanism is a halt vector: a difference-of-means direction at layer 18 of this model whose steering strength controls how long it thinks, while a replicated value axis does nothing, and what works is reconstructing the whole steered activation with those dimensions pinned to their natural values.
Dylan Jayabahu, Tinuade Adeleke· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
