IMPLY: Physically Anchored Consistency for World-Model Rollouts

World Action Models (WAMs) enable decision-making through imagined rollouts by predicting future observations and actions. However, the reliability of these imagined futures remains under-examined: is a generated future merely visually plausible, or is it dynamically compatible with the action sequence it claims to model? In this work, we identify action-state consistency, the alignment between predicted actions and induced state transitions, as a missing reliability axis for WAMs. Through a systematic study across representative joint-prediction and inverse-dynamics models, we find that action-state consistency systematically separates successful and failed rollouts across many tasks and follows similar success-failure trends as learned value estimates. These results suggest that consistency captures decision-relevant structure beyond visual realism. We further identify background collapse as an important boundary condition, where low-dynamics failed trajectories can become deceptively consistent because static futures are easier to predict. Building on these findings, we introduce a value-free consensus strategy for test-time selection, which ranks candidate rollouts by agreement among predicted futures. This strategy improves success rates on RoboCasa and RoboTwin 2.0 without additional training or reward modeling. Taken together, our findings establish action-state consistency as both a diagnostic tool for evaluating WAM reliability and a practical signal for value-free planning.

World models, systems that generate what happens next given current environmental conditions, are increasingly being implemented with multi-modal generation in mind. However, generating multiple modalities simultaneously, such as visual simulations alongside physical state predictions in the form of text, introduces the risk of cross-modal inconsistency. Tested separately, both outputs may look convincing while still disagreeing: a model can calculate that a ball should rebound in one modality, then generate no rebound in another modality, to say nothing of diverging from real-world dynamics entirely. In this work we focus on two failures explicitly: \emph{Internal misalignment}, the disagreement between the world model's generated video and the same world model's prediction in a different modalities, and \emph{external misalignment} the disagreement between the world model's generation and an analytic physical environment. We derive common contracts of event, magnitude, timing, and construct a physics grounded pipeline to make comparisons measurable in both external and internal settings. We then ask whether progressively supplying the model's own contract (the A ladder for the internal setting) or a corrected physical contract (the B ladder for the external setting) closes the respective gaps. Across four mechanisms and 20 settings, we find that while language answers all 22 text probes correctly with respect to the true environment, the neutral video is often in disagreement, suggesting that the current unified backbones may not be capable of correct reasoning, internal consistency, and external physical fidelity all at once.

Long-horizon failure in world models is conventionally attributed to compounding error, a generic framing that does not distinguish what kind of error compounds. We propose a kinematic-vs-dynamic reframing: world models tend to imagine kinematically rather than dynamically. We operationalize this as the imagined Kinematic-Consistency Error, a per-step diagnostic that measures how far a rollout departs from a closed-form kinematic null, paired with a perturbation protocol that tests whether iKCE responds when physical conditions cross a regime boundary. We instantiate the diagnostic on a released DreamerV3 checkpoint trained on DMC walker-walk, where imagined iKCE runs roughly two orders of magnitude above that of matched real-physics rollouts. Across a friction sweep that crosses the gait-collapse boundary, the model's iKCE stays statistically flat even as the trained policy's reward collapses through the same range, providing the kinematic-not-dynamic signature. The diagnostic distinguishes kinematic from dynamic imagination at horizons longer than the embodiment's gait period.