Predicting Consequences and Reinforcing Navigation Policies with Latent World Models
Authors: Zengmao Wang, Wei Gao, Shuhan Shen
Organizations: School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
World models enable agents to reason about future outcomes and learn policies from their knowledge of state transition, but existing approaches primarily focus on reconstructing future observations or features, which introduces unnecessary complexity and limits their effectiveness for decision making. In this work, we propose a compatibility prediction Latent World Model (LWM) for robot navigation that predicts action-conditioned latent feature compatibility rather than reconstructing observations. Our key insight is that spatial proximity correlates with latent feature similarity, enabling action consequences to be evaluated directly in latent space. To support counterfactual training, our model leverages action sequences sampled across trajectories and learns to predict which sequences lead closer to the goal. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the learned world model can supervise policy learning from unlabeled video data and further improve policies through reinforcement learning entirely within the world model. This imagination-driven framework eliminates the need for action annotations and additional environment interaction. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world robot navigation datasets show that our approach significantly outperforms prior world model and imitation learning methods in prediction accuracy, policy learning, and real-world navigation performance. The code, pretrained models, and additional materials are available at https://wzm206.github.io/latent-world-model-nav.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The overview of LWM. (a) When training the world model, we need to predict the consequences of different action sequences and obtain compatibility with the goal. (b) LWM can provide pseudo labels for the policy model. (c) The policy model can be reinforced in LWM.
RECON
SCAND
LWM
Method
PE ↓
OE ↓
ACC3 ↑
ACC5 ↑
PE ↓
OE ↓
ACC3 ↑
ACC5 ↑
PE ↓
OE ↓
ACC3 ↑
ACC5 ↑
NWM
7.222
1.279
40.97
27.23
5.534
0.623
41.66
26.04
5.710
0.884
42.43
26.26
DINO-WM
5.937
1.254
84.05
73.92
3.993
0.212
41.96
24.35
4.687
0.705
55.40
40.40
LWM-S (ours)
1.896
0.377
85.34
79.20
2.862
0.207
67.87
47.66
3.200
0.404
66.40
51.60
LWM-B (ours)
1.283
0.394
91.45
87.50
2.481
0.215
58.03
39.37
3.360
0.388
61.60
46.40
LWM-B-P (ours)
1.264
0.425
93.10
88.14
0.651
0.122
83.93
70.98
1.122
0.125
90.60
83.80
Table 1: World Model Prediction and Planning Evaluation. Comparison of prediction errors (PE, OE) and action selection accuracy (ACC3, ACC5). Our method achieve the lowest errors and highest accuracy compared to baseline methods.
Figure 2: Policy Reinforcement within the World Model. Policies starting from different initializations achieve performance improvements when further optimized via GRPO within LWM.
RECON
SCAND
LWM
Method
PE ↓
OE ↓
PE ↓
OE ↓
PE ↓
OE ↓
NWM
4.983
0.976
4.442
0.787
4.983
0.976
DINO-WM
4.994
1.159
1.995
0.133
3.177
0.397
LWM-S (ours)
2.013
0.448
0.899
0.096
1.678
0.209
LWM-B-P (ours)
1.729
0.523
0.853
0.081
1.468
0.178
Table 2: Policy Learning Performance. Evaluation of policies trained under the supervision of different world models demonstrate that LWM provides superior pseudo-labels for policy imitation.
Figure 3: Navigation in real-world environment. LWM can learn policy models within the world model.
Table 6Table 7
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: The action sequence centers obtained through k-means clustering.
Method
PE ↓
OE ↓
ACC3 ↑
ACC5 ↑
M=1
2.800
0.968
43.96
30.63
M=2
1.143
0.210
89.36
80.18
M=4
1.100
0.197
88.46
80.36
M=8
1.138
0.210
86.84
77.83
M=16
1.142
0.205
87.20
77.83
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation on Counterfactual Action Sequences using LWM-S
Method
PE ↓
OE ↓
ACC3 ↑
ACC5 ↑
M=1
5.205
1.083
32.97
20.72
M=2
3.586
0.467
60.36
46.18
M=4
3.307
0.412
62.88
49.54
M=8
3.427
0.408
61.26
47.20
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation on Counterfactual Action Sequences using LWM-B-P
Figure 6: The compatibility surface predicted by LWM.