SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2607.06640

What a World Model Represents Is Three Questions

Abstract

World models learn task-relevant information through many routes: observation reconstruction, recurrent state, temporal filtering, and explicit task supervision. Different routes can make different variables available. The same variable can also be available through several routes at once. When it is, looking at which route would increase the training loss most if removed does not tell you which route the model actually uses. The questions are reachability, whether a training signal can identify a task-relevant direction; admission, whether that direction is recoverable from the latent; and assignment, which eligible route carries it. We test them in environments with a known set of required coordinates. A direction cannot enter the latent unless some training signal can identify it. Reconstruction, recurrence, or filtering may already recover some of those coordinates; a reward or value head then has no residual direction to admit. For what remains, how many independent predictions the target supplies is how many coordinates install: one through four independent predictions admit one through four directions, including through the value head. Reachability is not admission: a temporal second-moment coefficient can remain absent under next-token prediction when accumulating it is a fraction of a percent of that loss, and a head that predicts the coefficient restores it. Assignment is a different test. Two routes that each carry the same variable when trained alone do not swap the carrier when we reverse which is more costly to remove. A recurrent model trained on a transformer's recorded sequences shows the same pattern. Near the point where the competing route is beginning to clear the probe threshold, independent training runs disagree. What a world model represents is therefore three questions: what information is reachable, what supervision admits, and which competing route carries it.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Donna Vakalis. 2026-07-07. What a World Model Represents Is Three Questions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06640

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG