Leveraging future observation modeling to facilitate action generation presents a promising avenue for enhancing the capabilities of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models. However, existing approaches struggle to strike a balance between maintaining efficient, predictable future representations and preserving sufficient fine-grained information to guide precise action generation. To address this limitation, we propose WoG (World Guidance), a framework that maps future observations into compact conditions by injecting them into the action inference pipeline. The VLA is then trained to simultaneously predict these compressed conditions alongside future actions, thereby achieving effective world modeling within the condition space for action inference. We demonstrate that modeling and predicting this condition space not only facilitates fine-grained action generation but also exhibits superior generalization capabilities. Moreover, it learns effectively from substantial human manipulation videos. Extensive experiments across both simulation and real-world environments validate that our method significantly outperforms existing methods based on future prediction. Project page is available at: https://selen-suyue.github.io/WoGNet/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: WoG first incorporates future observations into the action inference pipeline, projecting them into the condition space for action generation. Subsequently, it decouples future observations from the pipeline and simultaneously predicts these future conditions alongside actions, thereby transferring the knowledge of future conditions into the VLA model.
Figure 2: Overview of WoG . WoG is trained in two stages. In the first stage, future observations encoded by frozen vision foundation models are queried and compressed by a trainable Q-former-based Future Encoder to form condition representations, which, together with VLM-encoded current observations and instructions, are used for action prediction. In the second stage, the encoder and vision models are frozen, and the VLM backbone is trained to align with the conditions while predicting actions.
Model
Visual Matching
Variant Aggregation
Overall
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Avg.
π0 [ pi0 ]
72.7%
65.3%
38.3%
58.8%
75.2%
63.7%
25.6%
54.8%
56.8%
π0 -FAST [ fast ]
75.3%
67.5%
42.9%
61.9%
77.6%
68.2%
31.3%
59.0%
60.5%
OpenVLA [ openvla ]
16.3%
46.2%
35.6%
32.7%
54.5%
47.7%
17.7%
39.8%
33.8%
GR00T-N1 [ gr00t ]
47.0%
70.0%
18.1%
45.0%
78.8%
62.5%
13.2%
51.5%
48.4%
Moto [ moto ]
74.0%
60.4%
43.1%
59.2%
–
–
–
–
–
Table 1: SimplerEnv evaluation across different models on Google Robot tasks. Mv Near: Move Near, Drawer: Open/Close Drawer. WoG outperforms existing methods across the majority of tasks, with particularly notable gains in scenarios that necessitate efficient trajectory planning and collision avoidance.
Model
Put Spoon on Towel
Stack Green on Yellow
Put Carrot on Plate
Put Eggplant in Basket
Overall Average
Grasp Spoon
Success
Grasp G Block
Success
Grasp Carrot
Success
Grasp Eggplant
Success
Grasp Avg.
Success Avg.
π0 [ pi0 ]
45.8%
29.1%
25.0%
0.0%
50.0%
16.7%
91.6%
62.5%
40.1%
27.1%
π0 -FAST [ fast ]
62.5%
29.1%
58.5%
21.9%
54.0%
10.8%
83.3%
66.6%
48.3%
32.1%
OpenVLA [ openvla ]
4.1%
0.0%
33.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
8.3%
4.1%
7.8%
1.1%
GR00T-N1 [ gr00t ]
83.3%
62.5%
54.2%
45.8%
70.8%
16.7%
41.7%
20.8%
49.5%
36.5%
UniVLA [ univla ]
76.4%
52.8%
66.7%
2.8%
79.2%
55.6%
87.5%
66.7%
77.5%
45.6%
Table 2: SimplerEnv evaluation across different models on WidowX Robot tasks. WoG outperforms existing methods across a broad spectrum of Pick-and-Place tasks, notably surpassing approaches that jointly model video prediction and latent actions.
Model
Visual Matching
Variant Aggregation
Overall
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Avg.
WoG (dino)
96.0%
85.8%
56.0%
79.3%
88.1%
81.0%
9.8%
59.6%
69.5%
WoG (dino-siglip)
89.0%
82.5%
62.5%
78.0%
87.9%
75.0%
19.3%
60.7%
69.4%
WoG (dino-vae)
97.7%
87.1%
61.1%
82.0%
89.7%
77.5%
12.4%
59.9%
70.9%
Table 3: SimplerEnv evaluation across different pretrained encoder configurations on Google Robot tasks. Mv Near: Move Near, Drawer: Open/Close Drawer.
Model
Put Spoon on Towel
Stack Green on Yellow
Put Carrot on Plate
Put Eggplant in Basket
Overall Average
Grasp Spoon
Success
Grasp G Block
Success
Grasp Carrot
Success
Grasp Eggplant
Success
Grasp Avg.
Success Avg.
WoG (dino)
83.3%
66.7%
41.7%
8.3%
50.0%
29.2%
100.0%
91.7%
68.8%
49.0%
WoG (dino-siglip)
95.8%
79.2%
75.0%
33.0%
70.8%
50.0%
100.0%
91.7%
85.4%
63.5%
WoG (dino-vae)
95.8%
54.2%
66.7%
29.2%
83.3%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86.4%
58.4%
Table 4: SimplerEnv evaluation across different different pretrained encoder configurations on WidowX Robot tasks.
Model
Visual Matching
Variant Aggregation
Overall
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Pick Coke
Mv Near
Drawer
Avg.
Avg.
WoG w/o Future Enc.
93.3%
79.2%
52.8%
75.1%
87.3%
72.9%
14.8%
58.3%
66.7%
WoG w/o Future Enc. in Stage-II
91.3%
87.1%
46.3%
74.9%
88.0%
77.5%
9.8%
58.4%
66.7%
WoG w. Future Enc.
97.7%
87.1%
61.1%
82.0%
89.7%
77.5%
12.4%
59.9%
70.9%
Table 5: SimplerEnv evaluation across different Future Encoder ablation variants on Google Robot tasks. Mv Near: Move Near, Drawer: Open/Close Drawer.
Model
Put Spoon on Towel
Stack Green on Yellow
Put Carrot on Plate
Put Eggplant in Basket
Overall Average
Grasp Spoon
Success
Grasp G Block
Success
Grasp Carrot
Success
Grasp Eggplant
Success
Grasp Avg.
Success Avg.
WoG w/o Future Enc.
75.0%
54.2%
58.3%
29.2%
75.0%
54.2%
91.7%
91.7%
75.0%
57.3%
WoG w/o Future Enc. in Stage-II
83.3%
70.8%
58.3%
29.2%
50.0%
37.5%
95.8%
91.7%
71.8%
57.3%
WoG w. Future Enc.
95.8%
54.2%
66.7%
29.2%
83.3%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86.4%
58.4%
Table 6: SimplerEnv evaluation across different Future Encoder ablation variants on WidowX Robot tasks.
Figure 3: Overview of our real-world experiment setup . The figure shows our robotic platform and sensors (left), the execution of the three tasks under the in-distribution setup (middle), and the modifications applied for the out-of-distribution setup (right).
Model
Microwave
Pick and Place
Fold the Towel
ID
ID
Background
Novel Object
ID
Background
Light Change
Novel Object
UniVLA [ univla ]
80%
25%
25% → 20%
25% → 10%
20%
20% → 20%
20% → 10%
20% → 10%
VPP [ vpp ]
90%
55%
55% → 30%
55% → 15%
45%
45% → 30%
45% → 20%
45% → 30%
WoG
100%
60%
60% → 55%
60% → 40%
60%
60% → 50%
60% → 35%
60% → 50%
Table 7: Detailed performance comparison across all tasks. We report the success rate (%) for In-Distribution (ID) and various Out-of-Distribution scenarios. For OOD settings, scores are formatted as ID → OOD . Best results are highlighted in bold .
Model
Microwave
Pick and Place
Fold the Towel
ID
ID
Background
Novel Object
ID
Background
Light Change
Novel Object
Vanilla VLA
90%
45%
45% → 45%
45% → 40%
40%
40% → 25%
40% → 10%
40% → 30%
WoG w/o cotrain
95%
45%
45% → 45%
45% → 35%
30%
30% → 30%
30% → 10%
30% → 30%
WoG (Ours)
100%
60%
60% → 55%
60% → 40%
60%
60% → 50%
60% → 35%
60% → 50%
Table 8: Ablation of training stages in WoG. Vanilla VLA predicts actions solely from current observations. WoG w/o cotrain removes the condition supervision in the second stage. We report success rates (%); for OOD settings, scores are formatted as ID → OOD . Best results are highlighted in bold .
Strategy
Pick and Place
Fold the Towel
ID
Background
Novel Object
ID
Background
Light Change
Novel Object
w/o human data (Base)
60%
60% → 55%
60% → 40%
60%
60% → 50%
60% → 35%
60% → 50%
w. human v.
70%
70% → 70%
70% → 35%
50%
50% → 45%
50% → 30%
50% → 45%
w. human v./a.
70%
70% → 70%
70% → 45%
65%
65% → 60%
65% → 45%
65% → 50%
Table 9: Performance under different human data integration strategies. w/o human data : trained solely on robot data. w. human v. : trained with unannotated human videos. w. human v./a. : trained with a mix of annotated and unannotated human videos. Best results are bold .
Figure 4: Performance after training with UMI data. Compared to training solely with robot data, the WoG showed a 42% improvement in performance on the P&P task and a 33% on the Fold task.
Figure 5: Detailed illustration of the query mechanisms within WoG. The left panel depicts the future encoder, which maintains a set of learnable queries to extract low-dimensional, action-relevant conditions from the features of pretrained vision models. The right panel illustrates the query mechanism for condition prediction during the second training stage. Here, a set of learnable query embeddings performs cross-attention with the last hidden states of the VLM, producing predictive representations that are supervised to align with the target conditions generated by the now-frozen future encoder.
Dataset
Ratio
Dataset
Ratio
Dataset
Ratio
Fractal
0.140639
Kuka
0.140674
Bridge
0.146649
Taco Play
0.032661
Jaco Play
0.005354
Berkeley Cable Routing
0.002907
Roboturk
0.025753
Viola
0.010483
Berkeley Autolab UR5
0.013452
Toto
0.022367
Stanford Hydra Dataset
0.049202
Austin Buds Dataset
0.002343
NYU Franka Play Dataset
0.009245
Furniture Bench Dataset
0.027112
UCSD Kitchen Dataset
0.000545
Austin Sailor Dataset
0.024248
Austin Sirius Dataset
0.019224
DLR EDAN Shared Control
0.000613
Table 10: Dataset Sampling Ratios during the OXE pretraining.
Figure 6: Process of human manipulation process. We keep the same human manipulation data collection strategy as in [ gr3 , gr-dexter ] . Human trajectories can be efficiently collected with VR devices at a rate of approximately 450 trajectories per hour, substantially outpacing the teleoperated robot trajectory collection. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, we use action annotations for only 11% of the data, while the remaining 89% are leveraged solely as unlabeled videos. We argue that this setting more faithfully reflects real-world conditions, where action-labeled human manipulation data are scarce but large-scale unlabeled videos are abundant, and is therefore essential for evaluating the scalability of WoG.
Dataset
Ratio
Dataset
Ratio
Dataset
Ratio
Fractal
0.117016
Kuka
0.117045
Bridge
0.122016
Taco Play
0.027175
Jaco Play
0.004455
Berkeley Cable Routing
0.002419
Roboturk
0.021427
Viola
0.008722
Berkeley Autolab UR5
0.011192
Toto
0.018610
Stanford Hydra Dataset
0.040937
Austin Buds Dataset
0.001949
NYU Franka Play Dataset
0.007692
Furniture Bench Dataset
0.022558
UCSD Kitchen Dataset
0.000454
Austin Sailor Dataset
0.020175
Austin Sirius Dataset
0.015995
DLR EDAN Shared Control
0.000510
Table 11: Dataset Sampling Ratios for the Human Data Learning.
Vision-language-action (VLA) policies excel at generalist robotic manipulation but generate actions without explicitly modeling their environmental consequences. World action models (WAMs) incorporate future prediction, yet most rely on costly video generation, while latent alternatives either use predicted futures only as auxiliary targets or infer latent actions from suboptimal visual transitions through costly large-scale video pretraining. We introduce WAVE-0 (World-model-Augmented VLA Execution), a framework that bridges VLAs and WAMs through a lightweight latent world model. By connecting the semantic understanding of pretrained VLAs with explicit future prediction, WAVE-0 allows anticipated action consequences to directly guide action generation. Built on a pretrained VLA, its 257M world model translates VLM-generated latent action plans into predicted future representations that condition the action expert, unifying latent planning, future prediction, and action generation. The world model is trained directly on ground-truth robot actions with a counterfactual ranking objective, requiring neither pixel reconstruction nor large-scale video pretraining. WAVE-0 achieves success rates of 91.47% on RoboTwin 2.0 and 98.7% on LIBERO, along with 88.0%, 61.4%, and 75.0% on LIBERO-Plus, LIBERO-Pro, and LIBERO-Para, respectively. On real-world tasks, it improves the success rate of π0.5 from 38.3% to 73.3%. These results demonstrate strong manipulation performance and generalization across diverse distribution shifts.
Haomin Wang, Anqiong Ji, Ke Wang +4
AutoLab, School of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Baidu AI Cloud · Awaken Robotics +1
Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have emerged as a promising paradigm for building embodied agents that ground perception and language into action. However, most existing approaches rely on direct action prediction, lacking the ability to reason over long-horizon trajectories and evaluate their consequences, which limits performance in complex decision-making tasks. In this work, we introduce World-Value-Action (WAV) model, a unified framework that enables implicit planning in VLA systems. Rather than performing explicit trajectory optimization, WAV model learn a structured latent representation of future trajectories conditioned on visual observations and language instructions. A learned world model predicts future states, while a trajectory value function evaluates their long-horizon utility. Action generation is then formulated as inference in this latent space, where the model progressively concentrates probability mass on high-value and dynamically feasible trajectories. We provide a theoretical perspective showing that planning directly in action space suffers from an exponential decay in the probability of feasible trajectories as the horizon increases. In contrast, latent-space inference reshapes the search distribution toward feasible regions, enabling efficient long-horizon decision making. Extensive simulations and real-world experiments demonstrate that the WAV model consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving significant improvements in task success rate, generalization ability, and robustness, especially in long-horizon and compositional scenarios. Code is available at https://github.com/Win-commit/WAV.
Runze Li, Hongyin Zhang, Junxi Jin +5
Westlake University Hangzhou, China · Nanjing University Suzhou Campus, 1520 Taihu Avenue, Suzhou, China
Learning to predict how the world evolves can provide vision-language-action (VLA) policies with predictive context for long-horizon control, but its effectiveness depends on what future representation is modeled and how it conditions action generation. We introduce PLaW-VLA, which models task-relevant future states in a pretrained prediction-oriented representation space, reducing the need to predict control-irrelevant visual details. Built on a Mixture-of-Transformers architecture, PLaW-VLA conditions action generation on observation history, current task semantics, and predicted future states through structured causal attention. Experiments show a +11.8 percentage-point (pp) gain over reactive policies on RoboTwin Hard Horizon III and a +1.77 pp gain over reconstruction-oriented latent prediction on zero-shot LIBERO-Plus, supporting improved long-horizon control and generalization under distribution shift, respectively. By avoiding low-level visual reconstruction, PLaW-VLA lowers the burden of future prediction, enabling a lightweight latent world model with parallel future prediction and about 1/19 the inference latency of generative world-action modeling at comparable policy performance.
Yu Liu, Hetian Guo, Tianlv Huang +11
Jilin University · Astribot · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen +2