Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), 518055, China · Great Bay University, Dongguan 523000, China · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
World Action Models (WAMs) extend Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models by incorporating future visual dynamics into action generation. However, existing WAMs often utilize imagined futures with limited adaptation to evolving execution progress, potentially introducing distracting or unreliable predictive cues. This limitation arises from two empirically identified forms of non-uniformity in future utility: (i) at the inter-progress level, the utility of imagined futures varies across execution stages as control demands change; and (ii) at the intra-progress level, individual future latents exhibit heterogeneous relevance within the same progress state. To address these limitations, we propose ProWAM, a Progress-Conditioned World Action Model that introduces execution progress as an explicit intermediate representation for adaptive imagination utilization. ProWAM comprises two tightly coupled components: (1) To obtain a reliable representation of execution progress, we propose the Self-Supervised Dual-Temporal Progress Encoder (SS-DTPE). SS-DTPE couples short-term action-observation interaction modeling with long-term recurrent progress aggregation to capture recent execution feedback and accumulated task history. (2) Conditioned on the progress representation from SS-DTPE, we propose the Hierarchical Progress-Conditioned Imagination Modulation (HPIM) to adapt imagination utilization to execution progress. HPIM operates at two complementary levels: an inter-progress global modulation mechanism adapts future utilization across execution stages, while an intra-progress relevance mechanism differentiates individual future latents within each progress state. Extensive experiments demonstrate consistent gains over strong VLA and WAM baselines.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: (a) Motivation: Standard WAMs often adopt fixed imagination usage, overlooking progress-dependent utility and unequal relevance among future latents. ProWAM addresses these limitations through inter-progress global modulation and intra-progress future-latent relevance. (b) Architecture: Unlike Vanilla VLAs and Standard WAMs, ProWAM explicitly models execution progress to adapt imagination utilization. (c) Performance: ProWAM consistently outperforms representative baselines across simulation and real-world manipulation tasks.
Fig. 2: Empirical Motivation for Progress-Conditioned Imagination Usage. Left : Failure-case distribution across execution progress. The action-only variant tends to produce more failures in pre-contact stages such as search/transit and approach, suggesting that future visual latents can provide useful foresight before contact-rich interaction. Right: Sensitivity to perturbed future latent groups. Different progress stages show different sensitivity to near-, mid-, and long-horizon future latents, indicating that future information is not uniformly useful across the imagined sequence.
Fig. 3: Overview of ProWAM. ProWAM comprises a Self-Supervised Dual-Temporal Progress Encoder (SS-DTPE) and Hierarchical Progress-Conditioned Imagination Modulation (HPIM). SS-DTPE integrates short-term action–observation evidence with long-term execution history to encode the current progress state. Conditioned on this representation, HPIM jointly models an inter-progress global gate dt and intra-progress future-latent relevance ωt,fl , and combines them with the layer-wise coefficient ηl to obtain the modulation weight βt,fl . The resulting modulation is applied to the action-to-future attention pathway, enabling adaptive utilization of imagined future information.
Fig. 4: Self-Supervised Semantic Progress Alignment. Left (Property i): As execution progresses, the observation history aligns with increasingly complete instruction prefixes, which serve as latent semantic progress states. Right (Property ii): The expected semantic completion is constrained to evolve monotonically along successful trajectories.
Fig. 5: Experimental Setup. Top: Simulation evaluation on LIBERO, RoboTwin2.0, VLABench, RoboEval, and Mikasa-Robo, covering general manipulation, robustness, progress-aware execution, and temporal memory. Bottom: Real-world evaluation on the Galaxea R1 Lite and AgileX Cobot Magic platforms, covering progress-aware long-horizon manipulation and robustness to object and scene variations.
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
General VLA Models
OpenVLA-OFT [ 1 ]
97.6
98.4
97.9
94.5
97.1
π0 [ 2 ]
96.8
98.8
95.8
85.2
94.2
π0.5 [ 51 ]
98.8
98.2
98.0
92.4
96.9
PD-VLA [ 7 ]
95.5
96.7
94.9
91.7
94.7
SmolVLA [ 52 ]
93.0
94.0
91.0
77.0
88.8
TABLE I: General Robotic Manipulation Performance on LIBERO. Comparison of task success rates across the four LIBERO suites. The average is computed over the four suites, and the best result is highlighted in bold.
Method
Embodied PT.
Clean
Randomized
Avg.
General VLA Models
π0 [ 2 ]
✓
65.9
58.4
62.2
π0.5 [ 51 ]
✓
82.7
76.8
79.8
X-VLA [ 72 ]
✓
72.9
72.8
72.9
ABot-M0 [ 73 ]
✓
86.1
85.1
85.6
World Action Models
TABLE II: Robustness and Generalization Performance on RoboTwin2.0. Following the standard protocol [ 10 , 21 , 11 ] , we report success rates under clean and randomized settings. Clean uses fixed initial configurations, while Randomized varies object poses and scene layouts. Embodied PT. indicates whether embodied pre-training is used.
Method
SR ↑
IS ↑
PS ↑
π0 [ 2 ]
47.0
67.8
62.7
π0 -FAST [ 78 ]
56.2
72.4
66.8
π0.5 [ 51 ]
65.4
80.4
77.8
X-VLA [ 72 ]
–
–
67.8
ACoT-VLA [ 79 ]
–
79.8
66.1
Motus ∗ [ 21 ]
54.4
78.6
70.2
TABLE III: Progress-Aware Manipulation Performance on VLABench. We report Success Rate (SR), Intention Score (IS), and Progress Score (PS). ∗ denotes results reproduced by us under the same protocol.
Method
SR ↑
TP ↑
ACT [ 80 ]
0.278
0.454
π0.5 (LoRA) [ 51 ]
0.105
0.336
Diffusion Policy [ 81 ]
0.030
0.200
X-VLA [ 72 ]
0.015
0.114
GR00T [ 82 ]
0.013
0.136
Fast-WAM ∗ [ 11 ]
0.313
0.404
TABLE IV: Progress-Aware Manipulation Performance on RoboEval. We report the mean Success Rate (SR) and Task Progression (TP) across eight tasks and 30 task variations.
Method
SGT
IM
RC3
RC5
RC9
Avg.
DP [ 81 ]
23
–
3
–
–
–
PTP [ 84 ]
26
–
4
–
–
–
MaIL [ 85 ]
27
–
11
–
–
–
Octo [ 86 ]
46
39
45
17
11
31.6
CronusVLA [ 87 ]
32
5
31
13
9
18.0
SpatialVLA [ 88 ]
23
27
27
17
11
21.0
TABLE V: Temporal and Memory-Dependent Manipulation Performance on Mikasa-Robo. Following the standard protocol [ 6 , 83 ] , we report success rates (%) over 100 evaluation episodes for each task. SGT, IM, and RC3/5/9 denote ShellGameTouch, InterceptMedium, and RememberColor with 3/5/9 candidate objects, respectively.
Method
Drawer M.
Fold C.
Plate L.
Object P.
Marker C.
Stack T.
Tray T.
Plate H.
Avg.
Pull
+Place
+Push
Grasp
+Fold
+Release
Open
+Retrieve
+Cover
Open
+Pack
Insert
+Insert
Grasp
+Stack
+Stack
Pick
+Transfer
+Place
Pick
+Pass
+Place
(%)
Galaxea R1 Lite platform
OpenVLA †
60
52
40
40
34
20
56
46
38
48
46
60
54
54
52
48
40
34
20
56
54
50
40
OFT †
70
68
60
48
40
28
50
42
40
60
54
66
58
60
58
54
44
42
36
66
64
64
49
π0.5 †
74
74
66
68
66
58
70
64
60
74
64
74
68
78
74
70
64
60
52
78
76
74
64
DreamVLA †
58
58
54
50
40
34
54
52
48
54
48
68
56
56
50
50
40
36
34
46
44
40
46
TABLE VI: Real-World Progress-Aware Long-Horizon Manipulation Results. † denotes results reproduced under the same training and deployment settings as ProWAM. Each entry reports the cumulative stage-completion success rate (%) over 50 evaluation trials. Avg. denotes the average full-task success rate across all eight tasks, computed from the completion rate of the final stage. The best result in each column is highlighted in bold.
Method
Sort B.
Clear O.
Fold (OOD)
Stack B.
Avg.
Pick
+Sort
+Place
Pick
+Transfer
Grasp
+Fold
+Release
Pick
+Place
(%)
Galaxea R1 Lite platform
OFT †
64
60
56
58
56
24
16
14
66
62
47
π0.5†
74
70
70
68
66
48
44
42
80
76
64
DreamVLA †
54
50
48
52
52
28
26
20
68
56
44
Fast-WAM †
68
66
62
66
64
42
36
32
74
72
58
TABLE VII: Real-World Generalization and Robustness Results. † denotes results reproduced under the same training and deployment settings as ProWAM. We report cumulative stage-completion rates (%) over 50 trials with lighting, scene, and object variations.
Method
LIBERO
Real-World
SS-DTPE
HPIM
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
×
×
96.6
99.6
97.4
94.8
56
58
✓
×
98.4
99.6
98.0
96.2
66
65
×
✓
98.2
99.4
98.2
96.6
62
64
✓
✓
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE VIII: Ablation on Model Components. We ablate the proposed SS-DTPE and HPIM to evaluate their contributions on LIBERO and real-world manipulation tasks.
Aggregator
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
w/o Aggregator
96.2
99.2
97.0
95.2
58
59
LSTM [ 89 ]
97.2
99.6
98.2
96.6
60
63
Transformer [ 90 ]
97.6
99.8
97.6
96.4
62
61
Mamba (Ours)
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE IX: Ablation Studies on Long-Term Progress Aggregation in SS-DTPE. We compare different aggregation mechanisms while keeping other components unchanged.
Sem. Align.
Temp. Struct.
LIBERO
Real-World
Prop. i)
Prop. ii)
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
×
×
×
96.0
98.6
96.6
94.4
54
57
×
×
✓
96.4
99.0
97.4
94.6
57
58
✓
×
×
96.8
99.0
97.2
95.0
59
63
✓
✓
×
97.8
99.4
98.2
97.0
67
66
✓
✓
✓
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE X: Ablations on Self-Supervised Training Objectives in SS-DTPE. Sem. Align. denotes Semantic Progress Alignment, comprising Properties i) and ii) introduced in Sec. IV-B , while Temp. Struct. is Temporal Structure Learning.
Setting
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
Hierarchical Modulation
w/o Inter.
96.8
99.4
97.8
95.4
58
61
w/o Intra.
97.4
99.6
97.4
95.8
62
64
Full HPIM
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
Layer-Wise Schedule
TABLE XI: Ablation on HPIM. The upper block evaluates the inter-progress gate and intra-progress relevance. w/o Inter. fixes dt=1 , applying local relevance at all execution stages; w/o Intra. replaces token-wise relevance with uniform future modulation. The lower block compares a uniform layer-wise schedule with our middle-emphasized schedule.
Setting
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
w/o Progress Dynamics
98.0
98.4
97.0
96.8
59
61
Global Gate w/o Progress
97.2
98.0
96.6
96.0
57
58
Local Relevance w/o Progress
97.4
99.0
97.6
95.8
63
57
Full HPIM
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE XII: Ablations on Progress Conditioning in HPIM. w/o Progress Dynamics removes ΔZtprog while retaining Ztprog in the global gate. Global Gate w/o Progress removes both Ztprog and ΔZtprog from the global gate. Local Relevance w/o Progress removes progress conditioning from the local relevance branch. Other components are unchanged.
Modulation Path
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
Action-to-All-Visual
98.8
99.0
97.8
96.4
65
63
All-to-Future
98.4
98.8
97.4
96.6
64
67
Action-to-Future
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE XIII: Ablation Studies on Attention Modulation Paths. Action-to-All-Visual modulates action attention to both current and future visual tokens; All-to-Future modulates attention from all query tokens to future visual tokens; Action-to-Future only modulates attention from action tokens to future visual tokens, as adopted in our ProWAM.
Progress Source
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
Time-Only
96.8
97.8
97.0
95.2
56
59
SS-DTPE (Ours)
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
TABLE XIV: Analysis on Progress Source. Time-Only uses normalized execution time as the progress signal, while SS-DTPE estimates progress from action-observation feedback and recurrent execution history.
Setting
LIBERO
Real-World
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Long.
Gen.
Effect of Gate Supervision
w/o Gate Supervision
97.2
98.0
96.4
95.6
59
61
w/ Gate Supervision
99.6
100.0
98.8
97.8
72
69
Robustness to Label Perturbation
Perturb. (5%)
99.6
99.8
98.8
97.4
70
69
TABLE XV: Analysis on Global-Gate Supervision. The upper block evaluates gate supervision, while the lower examines robustness to perturbations of the weak labels.
Fig. 6: Qualitative Visualization of Progress-Conditioned Attention Modulation. Compared with unmodulated attention, HPIM produces more concentrated responses around instruction-relevant objects and task-critical interaction regions across both main and wrist views.
Fig. 7: Qualitative Visualization of Progress Representations Learned by SS-DTPE. (a) Semantic progress estimates on held-out trajectories exhibit consistent and approximately monotonic evolution while preserving trajectory-specific variations. (b) Progress-token similarity shows strong local temporal coherence and lower similarity between temporally distant states.
Fig. 8: Qualitative Visualization of Inter-Progress Global Modulation. Representative stages from Clear Objects into Bin and Transfer Objects from Tray to Tray show that the global gate dt varies with execution progress, enabling stage-dependent modulation rather than fixed imagination utilization. Dashed arrows indicate temporal progression.
Fig. 9: Qualitative Comparison on Real-World Manipulation Tasks. Fast-WAM exhibits execution errors at critical interaction and transition stages, whereas ProWAM maintains more consistent task progression and successfully completes the subsequent stages. Red and green annotations highlight failure and successful execution events, respectively.
Fig. 10: Qualitative Visualization of Intra-Progress Future-Latent Relevance. F1:F2 denotes the relevance-mass split between the two future frames. The curves show cumulative relevance over ranked future latents, with the gray diagonal indicating uniform allocation; marked values report the mass captured by the top 20% latents.
Fig. 11: Real-world Robotic Platforms Used in Our Experiments. Left: Galaxea R1 Lite. Right: AgileX Cobot Magic. The two platforms provide complementary mobile-manipulation embodiments for evaluating progress-aware long-horizon manipulation and generalization.
Fig. 12: Qualitative Simulation Results Across Five Benchmarks. Representative execution sequences of ProWAM on LIBERO, RoboTwin 2.0, Mikasa-Robo, VLABench, and RoboEval are shown in temporal order from left to right. The examples cover long-horizon object manipulation, bimanual coordination and handover, contact-rich interaction, memory-dependent control, fine-grained semantic grounding, and robustness to task variations.
Fig. 13: Qualitative Results on Real-World Manipulation Tasks. Representative execution sequences of ProWAM across eight progress-aware long-horizon tasks and four generalization and robustness tasks are shown in temporal order from left to right. The examples cover sequential object manipulation, bimanual coordination and handover, deformable-object interaction, multi-object transfer, fine-grained insertion, and out-of-distribution appearance and scene variations.
World Action Models (WAMs) have emerged as a promising alternative to Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models for embodied control because they explicitly model how visual observations may evolve under action. Most existing WAMs follow an imagine-then-execute paradigm, incurring substantial test-time latency from iterative video denoising, yet it remains unclear whether explicit future imagination is actually necessary for strong action performance. In this paper, we ask whether WAMs need explicit future imagination at test time, or whether their benefit comes primarily from video modeling during training. We disentangle the role of video modeling during training from explicit future generation during inference by proposing Fast-WAM, a WAM architecture that retains video co-training during training but skips future prediction at test time. We further instantiate several Fast-WAM variants to enable a controlled comparison of these two factors. Across these variants, we find that Fast-WAM remains competitive with imagine-then-execute variants, while removing video co-training causes a much larger performance drop. Empirically, Fast-WAM achieves competitive results with state-of-the-art methods both on simulation benchmarks (LIBERO and RoboTwin) and real-world tasks, without embodied pretraining. It runs in real time with 190ms latency, over 4× faster than existing imagine-then-execute WAMs. These results suggest that the main value of video prediction in WAMs may lie in improving world representations during training rather than generating future observations at test time. Project page: https://yuantianyuan01.github.io/FastWAM/
World action models (WAMs) improve robot control by modeling how observations evolve, but generating future observations at test time incurs substantial latency. Fast-WAM removes this process for efficiency; however, our matched implementations show lower generalization for Fast-WAM than for future-aware alternatives, especially with scarce robot demonstrations and in out-of-distribution scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce LAWA, a WAM architecture that uses compact latent actions as an operational representation of future intentions, enabling efficient test-time future imagination without generating future observations. Specifically, a discrete tokenizer enhanced by action-free pre-training produces manipulation-centric codebook targets. LAWA jointly denoises a continuous latent state anchored to these targets with executable action chunks while omitting the future-video branch at inference. On RoboCasa, LAWA achieves state-of-the-art average success rates of 65.6% and 80.8% in the few-shot and full data settings, improving over the matched Fast-WAM baseline by 9.6 and 4.5 points, respectively. It also preserves the performance level of the matched Joint-WAM variant while requiring 42.9% lower inference latency. LAWA also demonstrates competitive zero-shot robustness on LIBERO-Plus and superior performance on real-world tasks. These results show that future imagination need not be discarded: retaining it with compact latent actions yields an effective trade-off among performance, generalization, and latency. Code and models will be released.
World action models (WAMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for robotic control by jointly predicting future visual dynamics and actions from an initial observation and instruction. However, existing WAMs struggle with long-horizon prediction, as generating dense video rollouts is highly inefficient. Some recent WAMs address this by predicting a single future frame without generating the full video, but this approach neglects how to progress toward the goal. We present ProWAM, a progressive world action model that jointly predicts actions and an ordered sequence of sparse visual sub-goals, providing explicit visual guidance to anchor action generation throughout task execution. This design scales naturally, as sub-goal prediction can be learned from large-scale action-free videos, allowing the video backbone to offload complex visual planning from the action policy. For efficient action generation, ProWAM executes a single video-backbone forward pass to cache sparse sub-goal features, eliminating iterative full-video generation and requiring only lightweight action denoising during replanning. Across extensive evaluations, ProWAM achieves superior out-of-distribution robustness. On simulation benchmarks, it sets new state-of-the-art results on LIBERO-Plus (85.8%) and randomized RoboTwin (75.7%), outperforming the strongest baseline with relative gains of up to +35.9%. On RoboCasa365, ProWAM achieves a 48.1% success rate and 18.2% on the challenging Composite-Unseen split, ranking 4th overall. Crucially, in zero-shot real-world experiments, ProWAM achieves 70.0% success, outperforming the strongest baseline by +15.0 (from 55.0% to 70.0%, a +27.3% relative gain) in novel scenes. These results demonstrate the value of progress-indexed visual foresight for closed-loop control. Our program is in https://sii-ferenas.github.io/ProWAM-page.