Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper formalizes and unifies recent research using graph structures for environment representation under the umbrella of Graph World Models (GWMs). It introduces a taxonomy of GWMs based on relational inductive biases (RIBs), specifically spatial, physical, and logical RIBs, and analyzes representative models within each category. The paper also outlines open challenges and future research directions for GWMs, such as dynamic graph adaptation and probabilistic relational dynamics.
Graph World Models offer a structured approach to environment representation that could overcome the limitations of traditional tensor-based world models, potentially leading to more robust and interpretable AI agents.
As one of the mainstream models of artificial intelligence, world models allow agents to learn the representation of the environment for efficient prediction and planning. However, classical world models based on flat tensors face several key problems, including noise sensitivity, error accumulation and weak reasoning. To address these limitations, many recent studies use graph structure to decompose the environment into entity nodes and interactive edges, and model virtual environments in a structured space. This paper systematically formalizes and unifies these emerging graph-based works under the concept of graph world models (GWMs). To the best of our knowledge, GWMs have not yet been explicitly defined and surveyed as a unified research paradigm. Furthermore, we propose a taxonomy based on relational inductive biases (RIB), categorizing GWMs by the specific structural priors they inject: (1) spatial RIB for topological abstraction; (2) physical RIB for dynamic simulation; and (3) logical RIB for causal and semantic reasoning. For each model category, we outline the key design principles, summarize representative models, and conduct comparative analyses. We further discuss open challenges and future directions, including dynamic graph adaptation, probabilistic relational dynamics, multi-granularity inductive biases, and the need for dedicated benchmarks and evaluation metrics for GWMs.
