Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques existing world models in embodied systems, highlighting three critical structural mismatches that hinder safe decision-making: the disconnect between predictive likelihood and risk, the gap between prediction and intervention, and the limitations of finite-horizon predictions. It introduces the Risk-Informed World Model (RIWM), which emphasizes decision-centric approaches by integrating capabilities such as decision-relevant representation, counterfactual reasoning, and runtime safety assurance. The key finding is that future world models should prioritize identifying consequential futures and revising actions based on accumulated experience rather than merely predicting likely outcomes.
Current world models may prioritize likelihood over safety, but the new Risk-Informed World Model shifts the focus to what truly matters for decision-making in safety-critical environments.
World models have progressed from compact latent dynamics to generative, controllable, and interactive simulators of embodied environments. However, high predictive likelihood and visual fidelity do not necessarily ensure that a model preserves the evidence required for safe decision-making. This perspective identifies three structural mismatches in current world modeling: likelihood versus risk, prediction versus intervention, and finite-horizon prediction versus accumulated consequences. We propose the Risk-Informed World Model (RIWM) as a decision-centric research direction for safety-critical embodied systems. RIWM organizes world modeling around consequences, intervention, epistemic uncertainty, and recoverability, and integrates four interdependent capabilities: decision-relevant representation, counterfactual reasoning, safety-critical episodic memory, and runtime safety assurance. It distinguishes physical, social, and operational consequences while using epistemic uncertainty to qualify the evidence supporting action. We further discuss open challenges in identifying consequential futures, validating counterfactual reasoning, maintaining revisable safety memories, translating learned consequences into executable constraints, and determining when evidence is sufficient to act. This perspective argues that future world models should move beyond predicting likely futures toward identifying which futures matter, revising judgments through experience, and recognizing when to act, revise, sense, defer, or abstain.
