Preprint

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Do Robotic World Models Really Follow Actions? Diagnosing and Aligning Action-Conditioned Generation for Policy Learning

Chen, Sixiang, Liu, Jiaming, Wu, Jixian, Guo, Yichen, Wang, Tinghao, Li, QR, Qian, Siyuan, Co, Peterson, Chen, Hao, Cao, Jiajun, Li, Zhoujian, Zhai, Lingfei, Tang, Jian, Zhang, Shanghang·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Action-conditioned world models increasingly serve as learned simulators for robotic policy improvement, yet their reliability rests on an unverified assumption: generated futures faithfully reflect the consequences of arbitrary valid actions. Systematic evaluation against action-specific ground truth remains limited beyond expert demonstrations. To address this gap, we introduce WorldEcho, which evaluates action following over a broader action distribution through visual integrity and SE(3) end-effector trajectory alignment. Our diagnosis shows that expert-trained models perform better on demonstrated actions but struggle with off-expert trajectories, producing motion inconsistent with the commanded actions or visually invalid rollouts. To mitigate these failures, we propose WorldSync, which broadens action coverage, grounds intermediate video representations in action-induced robot dynamics through an Action-Forcing Expert, and aligns predicted and ground-truth changes under action interventions. Experiments show that WorldSync reduces integrity-gated error on RoboTwin and, when used for iterative policy improvement, yields higher success rates in simulation and on real robots.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2608.24885

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Chen, S., Liu, J., Wu, J., Guo, Y., Wang, T., Li, Q., Qian, S., Co, P., Chen, H., Cao, J., Li, Z., Zhai, L., Tang, J., & Zhang, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review