Recursive multi-step forecasting is usually framed as distribution shift: models are trained on observed histories but deployed on their own predictions. We show this framing is incomplete by proving that, under partial observability or state truncation, recursive rollout is also an epistemic underidentification problem. Even with deterministic latent dynamics, one-step Bayes supervision identifies behavior only on observed contexts and need not identify the deployed recursive predictor once rollout queries self-generated induced states whose correct local targets are not determined by numeric state alone. We formalize this with induced states Z and provenance variables P, and derive a decomposition of induced-state error into teacher-forcing/rollout mismatch, representation--class approximation, and provenance information gaps. Empirically, we show that rollout enters a distinct induced-state regime, that fixed induced states define a distinct local corrective task, and that closed-loop gains arise not only from local adaptation but also from changing the induced states visited during rollout. Using a simple binary provenance encoding, provenance-aware correction can further improve performance, though gains are conditional rather than uniform. These results recast exposure bias as reasoning under self-induced epistemic uncertainty.
Model-Based Reinforcement Learning distinguishes between physical dynamics models operating on proprioceptive inputs and latent dynamics models operating on high-dimensional image observations. A prominent latent approach is the Recurrent State Space Model used in the Dreamer family. While epistemic uncertainty quantification to inform exploration and mitigate model exploitation is well established for physical dynamics models, its transfer to latent dynamics models has received limited scrutiny. We empirically demonstrate that latent transitions are biased toward well-represented regions of latent space, exhibiting an attractor behavior that can deviate from true environment dynamics. As a result, discrepancies in environment dynamics may not manifest in latent space, undermining the reliability of epistemic uncertainty estimates. Because these attractors often lie in high-reward regions, latent rollouts systematically overestimate predicted rewards. Our findings highlight key limitations of epistemic uncertainty estimation in latent dynamics models and motivate more critical evaluation of this method.
Julia Berger, Bernd Frauenknecht, Sebastian Trimpe +1
Many high-stakes decisions depend on forecasts made before outcomes are known. In this future prediction setting, the central challenge is that public evidence evolves over time, while the main supervision signal arrives only after resolution: the realized outcome mainly assesses final correctness, offering only coarse guidance on what to track, what to verify, and which judgments to leave uncertain along the way. Our key observation is that revisiting the same unresolved question over time creates informative temporal contrasts across evolving evidence and repeated forecasts, exposing what earlier attempts missed before resolution and yielding a diagnostic signal we call the pre-resolution signal. We instantiate this idea in Milkyway, a future prediction agent with a persistent future prediction harness, an editable external state that stores reusable procedural guidance across revisits to the same unresolved question. As the same unresolved question is revisited, Milkyway extracts pre-resolution signals from evolving evidence and repeated forecasts, uses them to update the harness, and improves later forecasts on that question before resolution. After resolution, the realized outcome serves as a post-resolution check of provisional updates. On the FutureX and FutureWorld benchmarks, Milkyway achieves strong performance against competitive baselines, and a mechanism study suggests that the gains stem from harness evolution driven by pre-resolution signals rather than repeated prediction alone.
A calibrated stochastic world model can reveal how uncertain a future is without revealing why it branches. The same conditional future law can arise because an observation aliases physical states or because dynamics remain random after the declared full state is fixed. We prove that ordinary transitions cannot identify these two sources, even for a perfect probabilistic predictor. ClosurePairs makes them identifiable by crossing compatible microstates with repeated exogenous disturbances and estimating state, noise, and state-noise interaction variance. The central consequence is operational: under finite hierarchical sampling, forecast difficulty governs the useful compute scale, while the alias/process composition provides complementary information about its direction-resolving the current state or sampling future randomness. ClosurePairs recovers source attribution at unchanged likelihood, reduces equal-budget decomposition error in a nonlinear interaction benchmark, and supports observation-only routing. On exact-marginal MetaWorld twins, an output-only allocator is at chance while a Closure-supervised probe on frozen JEPA-WM features routes 89.8-100%. In an independent ManiSkill PushCube confirmation, a stochastic RSSM's outputs and latents remain at chance, whereas an RGB-only Closure probe routes 100% under both ID and geometry/camera OOD over five seeds, matching direct allocation rather than exceeding it. Across five unseen allocation menus, the same Closure probe routes 92.5%/90.4% ID/OOD with no new oracle labels, versus 37.9%/32.9% for a frozen direct allocator. ClosurePairs is therefore an identifiable, reusable mechanism target that cannot be recovered from forecast quality alone.