Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces BadWAM, a framework designed to model and evaluate World-Action Drift Attacks on World-Action Models (WAMs), which couple action generation with future world prediction. The authors demonstrate that the assumed robustness of WAMs is fragile, revealing that small visual perturbations can disrupt the alignment between a WAM's imagined future and its executed actions. Experimental results indicate that these adversarial attacks significantly degrade task success rates, with one attack variant reducing performance from 96.5% to 43.1%, highlighting a critical vulnerability in WAMs that could impact their deployment in real-world applications.
Small visual perturbations can cause World-Action Models to execute harmful actions while still predicting a plausible future, revealing a critical vulnerability in their design.
World-action models (WAMs) are emerging as a promising foundation for embodied control: rather than predicting actions alone, they learn representations that couple action generation with future world prediction. This coupling is often viewed as a source of robustness, interpretability, and safety, as a robot's action can in principle be checked against its imagined future. In this paper, we show that this assumption is fragile. We introduce BadWAM, a unified framework for modeling and evaluating World-Action Drift Attacks: a new class of WAM-specific adversarial attacks that use small visual perturbations to break the alignment between what a WAM imagines and what it executes. BadWAM characterizes this attack surface along two natural criteria: attack strength and stealthiness. When the adversary prioritizes disruption, BadWAM instantiates an action-only adversarial attack, which directly drives the model toward task-failing actions. When the adversary additionally prioritizes stealth, BadWAM instantiates an imagination-preserving adversarial attack, which seeks to induce harmful action shifts while keeping the model's predicted future close to its clean imagination. Together, these two attacks capture a spectrum of WAM-specific failures: from overt action hijacking to stealthier cases where the model appears to imagine a plausible future but executes a desynchronized action. We evaluate BadWAM across different variants of WAMs. Results show that our attacks substantially reduce task success rates under closed-loop execution. For example, our action-only attack reduces the model performance from 96.5% to 43.1% success. The results of our imagination-preserving attack further exposes a WAM-specific vulnerability: moderate future-preserving regularization can maintain strong attack performance while reducing future imagination drift.
NUS