DroneWAM: Efficient World Action Model for Drone Visual Navigation
Authors: Liang Yao, Fan Liu, Hongbo Lu, Wei Xu, Jianyu Jiang, Yijun Shen, Chuanyi Zhang, Pai Peng
Organizations: Hohai University · Key Laboratory of Water Big Data Technology of Ministry of Water Resources · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CowaRobot Co. Ltd. · Nanjing University · Southeast University · East China Normal University
World-action models give visual navigation agents a way to anticipate how candidate actions will change future observations and to act from the predicted consequences. For drones, this capability must operate under tight accuracy and efficiency constraints. We present DroneWAM, an efficient world-action model for drone visual navigation. DroneWAM adopts a JEPA-based architecture to model future states directly in representation space, avoiding the cost of explicit future image generation. A pretrained Resampler further compresses dense encoder features into fewer latent tokens, reducing the computation repeated at each imagined step. We also introduce adaptive rollout, where a preference-trained Gate adaptively allocates prediction depth according to the current scene. To support learning under richer aerial motion, we construct DroneNav-6D, a simulated visual navigation dataset with synchronized RGB observations, 6-DoF flight trajectories, control commands, and randomized wind disturbances. On DroneNav-6D, DroneWAM achieves the best trajectory accuracy among the compared methods. Adaptive rollout further reduces the average prediction depth from 8 to 4.58 while improving trajectory accuracy, demonstrating that predictive computation can be allocated more effectively across scenes. Codes and data will be released.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Compared to prior approaches.
Figure 2: Examples of goal-conditioned navigation samples in DroneNav-6D. Each row shows the flight trajectory together with the sampled goal image and current observation.
Figure 3: Overview of DroneWAM and DroneNav-6D. (a) DroneNav-6D provides diverse simulated environments with synchronized visual observations and 6-DoF flight trajectories. (b) DroneWAM is trained in three stages: Resampler pretraining, world-action model training with latent prediction and planning objectives, and preference learning for the Gate. (c) During inference, the Predictor and Planner iteratively imagine future latent states and action plans, while the Gate determines when to stop and returns the highest-scoring plan for efficiency.
Method
ATE ↓
Rel.ATE ↓
RPE ↓
Rel.RPE ↓
Infer. (ms) ↓
DINO-WM ( Zhou et al., 2024 )
9.0923
0.4459
3.0681
0.1502
29,622.24
V-JEPA 2-AC ( Assran et al., 2025 )
27.4317
0.6621
9.0439
0.2190
64,617.72
LeWM ( Maes et al., 2026 )
4.2259
0.4164
1.0924
0.1080
654.37
FastWAM ( Yuan et al., 2026 )
1.8366
0.1919
0.5086
0.0427
712.33
NWM ( Bar et al., 2025 )
3.7580
0.3740
0.8051
0.0802
403,827.78
Ours
1.1062
0.0578
0.3470
0.0180
483.29
Table 1: Open-loop evaluation on DroneNav-6D.
Method
ATE ↓
Rel.ATE ↓
RPE ↓
Rel.RPE ↓
Prog. ↑
MSE ↓
Infer. (ms) ↓
FastWAM ( Yuan et al., 2026 )
119.8063
0.7410
2.7309
0.0176
0.510
124.30
712.33
NWM ( Bar et al., 2025 )
88.6305
0.5980
2.7245
0.0171
0.500
178.55
403,827.78
Ours
83.4461
0.5184
2.7194
0.0168
0.774
91.96
483.29
Table 2: Closed-loop navigation results on DroneNav-6D.
PLA
RS
AR
Rel.ATE ↓
Rel.RPE ↓
Infer. (ms) ↓
0.6621
0.2190
64,617.72
✓
0.0584
0.0189
656.12
✓
✓
0.0603
0.0192
582.65
✓
✓
✓
0.0578
0.0180
483.29
Table 3: Component ablation. PLA, RS, and AR denote Planner, Resampler, and Adaptive Rollout, respectively.
Method
Rel.ATE ↓
Rel.RPE ↓
Avg. K↓
Fixed
0.0688
0.0221
8.000
Random
0.0722
0.0224
4.581
Latent Margin
0.0887
0.0309
5.625
Ours
0.0578
0.0180
4.578
Table 4: Comparison of rollout strategies. Avg. K denotes the average rollout depth.
#Tok.
Rel.ATE ↓
Rel.RPE ↓
Infer. (ms) ↓
512
0.0574
0.0179
591.28
128
0.0578
0.0180
483.29
16
0.0659
0.0198
405.16
Table 5: Effect of Resampler size. #Tok. denotes the number of output latent tokens.
Figure 4: Accuracy at different rollout depths. Samples are grouped by the rollout depth, and red boxes indicate the corresponding selected depth.
Method
N.RMSE ↓
Grip.(%) ↑
Latency ↓
K=8
0.2685
89.83
890.8
Adaptive
0.2652
90.35
411.9
Table 6: Open-loop results on LIBERO. Full action metrics are reported in the Appendix.
Figure 5: Generalization of the preference-trained Gate across unseen environments. Seen and unseen results are compared under environment-level cross-validation.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of predicted trajectories across diverse aerial scenes. Green, yellow, and red denote the ground-truth trajectory, FastWAM, and DroneWAM, respectively. DroneWAM consistently follows the reference trajectory more closely, while FastWAM exhibits larger directional and accumulated drift.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Split
Clips
Frames
Hours
Distance (km)
20-frame windows
Training
3,453
1,427,016
56.49
1,795.42
1,361,409
Validation
384
165,154
6.54
208.69
157,858
Total
3,837
1,592,170
63.03
2,004.11
1,519,267
Appendix
Table 7: Size of DroneNav-6D. Window counts enumerate overlapping sequences of 20 consecutive frames within individual clips. Flight duration and distance are summed over clips.
Figure 7: Dataset composition across the five worlds. The panels show (a) training and validation clip counts, (b) recorded flight duration, and (c) the distribution of individual clip durations. CityBIM, Rural, Roads, and Snow denote CITYBIM, RuralAustralia, SnappyRoads, and Snowy Mountain, respectively. These abbreviations are used throughout the dataset figures.
Component
Unit
P10
Median
P90
Δx
m/frame
0.408
1.138
1.346
Δy
m/frame
−0.943
0.000
0.945
Δz
m/frame
−0.199
0.000
0.193
Δϕ (roll)
deg/frame
−1.395
0.000
1.392
Δθ (pitch)
deg/frame
−1.252
0.011
1.376
Δψ (yaw)
deg/frame
−4.406
0.000
4.376
Appendix
Table 8: Distribution of pose increments between consecutive frames. Translation uses yaw-aligned horizontal axes and the NED vertical axis; angular increments are wrapped Euler-angle differences. P10 and P90 denote the 10th and 90th percentiles. Values are rounded to three decimal places.
Figure 8: Distributions of six-dimensional pose increments between consecutive frames, shown separately for each world using clip-balanced samples. The top row shows translation in meters per frame, and the bottom row shows roll, pitch, and yaw changes in degrees per frame. Violin plots depict the distributions; boxes indicate the interquartile range, central lines mark the medians, and whiskers span the 5th–95th percentiles.
World
Clips
Frames
Duration (s)
Speed (m/s)
CITYBIM
943
373,702
58.44
9.357
NYC
1,159
603,705
66.57
9.298
RuralAustralia
518
185,346
53.14
9.319
SnappyRoads
611
217,483
53.58
9.329
Snowy Mountain
606
211,934
53.16
9.325
Appendix
Table 9: Per-world data and motion statistics. Duration is the median clip duration; speed is the per-world median in the dataset statistics.
Figure 9: Trajectory characteristics across worlds. Violin and box plots summarize (a) clip duration, (b) three-dimensional path length, (c) cumulative vertical travel, and (d) the 95th-percentile linear speed within each clip.
Figure 10: Motion over prediction horizons of one to eight frame intervals. The panels show translational displacement and quaternion-based geodesic rotation. Colored curves are per-world medians; the black curve is the pooled median, and the shaded region spans the pooled 10th–90th percentiles.
Figure 11: Translation and rotation in the recorded motion. (a) Spearman correlations among the six pose-increment components. (b) Each point shows the 95th-percentile linear and angular speeds of one clip, colored by world. The vertical axis uses a logarithmic scale.
Figure 12: Visual features of 1,000 sampled RGB observations. Each world contributes 100 training and 100 validation images. Frozen ImageNet-pretrained AlexNet fc7 features are projected with PCA to 50 dimensions and then with t-SNE to two dimensions. The same coordinates are colored by (a) world and (b) split. The reported trustworthiness at 10 neighbors is 0.990; the visualization characterizes local feature neighborhoods.
Figure 13: DroneNav-6D sample 1.
Figure 14: DroneNav-6D sample 2.
Method
Success ↑
rel.ATE ↓
rel.RPE ↓
Task Progress ↑
Latency (ms) ↓
NWM
74%
0.31
0.012
0.79
1.3×105
FastWAM
72%
0.38
0.014
0.76
700ms
DroneWAM
88%
0.15
0.008
0.95
460ms
Appendix
Table 10: Global visual closed-loop results on easy routes.
Case
Gate depth
D1 rel.ATE
Gate rel.ATE
D8 rel.ATE
D1 rel.RPE
Gate rel.RPE
D8 rel.RPE
Case 1
4
0.1879
0.1083
0.1064
0.0627
0.0366
0.0322
Case 2
1
0.0142
0.0142
0.0192
0.0064
0.0064
0.0073
Case 3
2
0.0543
0.0423
0.0514
0.0164
0.0127
0.0150
Case 4
1
0.2160
0.2160
0.1285
0.0924
0.0924
0.0668
Appendix
Table 11: Case studies at different rollout depths. Each row evaluates the same sample at depth 1, the Gate-selected depth, and depth 8.
Method
Mean depth
Norm. RMSE ↓
Norm. L1 ↓
EEF RMSE ↓
EEF L1 ↓
Gripper acc. ↑
Latency (ms) ↓
Base WAM
–
0.3636
0.2466
0.2647
0.1631
85.42%
957.1
Fixed D1
1.00
0.2735
0.1874
0.1932
0.1232
89.79%
129.7
Fixed D2
2.00
0.2680
0.1844
0.1906
0.1218
90.21%
237.7
Fixed D4
4.00
0.2667
0.1839
0.1890
0.1212
90.35%
451.3
Fixed D8
8.00
0.2685
0.1848
0.1905
0.1223
89.83%
890.8
Ours
3.56
0.2652
0.1825
0.1881
0.1206
90.55%
411.9
Appendix
Table 12: Full open-loop action-prediction results.
Suite
Episodes
Base WAM ↓
Fixed D8 ↓
Ours ↓
Mean depth
Spatial
44
0.3479
0.2321
0.2275
3.43
Object
46
0.2609
0.1857
0.1831
4.02
Goal
44
0.4461
0.3478
0.3441
3.09
Long
39
0.4094
0.3177
0.3156
3.69
Appendix
Table 13: Normalized action RMSE by LIBERO suite.
Method
Spatial
Object
Goal
Long
Avg.
DroneWAM
52.26
64.32
54.27
10.08
45.23
Improved-DroneWAM
62.89
90.22
70.22
16.44
59.94
Appendix
Table 14: Closed-loop success rates (%) on LIBERO.
Pretrained video foundation models encode rich semantic and spatiotemporal priors for embodied navigation, yet converting these priors into UAV motion typically requires expensive future-video synthesis and geometric reconstruction. We investigate whether the motion implicit in future visual prediction can instead be recovered directly from the predictive representations of a frozen video model. To this end, we present DiffWAM, a geometry-conditioned navigation world-action model that directly transforms multi-level predictive features into continuous camera trajectories. Its Grid-Motion module preserves spatial-temporal motion associations, while Latent2Pose grounds them with first-frame geometry to recover metrically meaningful 3D motion. Complete video rollouts and geometric reconstruction are required only for offline supervision, eliminating future-video decoding and multi-frame reconstruction during deployment. We further introduce FastDreamer, which overlaps predictive and geometric computation with ongoing flight and performs timestamp-aware asynchronous trajectory handoff for continuous UAV execution. DiffWAM achieves a trajectory RMSE of 0.3492 m and an endpoint success rate of 74.40% on the 1,000-sample DiffWAM-1000 benchmark, while representative real-world experiments demonstrate complex behaviors including constrained traversal, orbiting, S-shaped flight, and multi-stage navigation. An onboard DiffWAM-Flash implementation further reaches 1.08 s model-pipeline latency on NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor. These results demonstrate that predictive video representations can be efficiently grounded into continuous 3D motion, providing a direct alternative to generate-then-reconstruct navigation pipelines. Project page: https://zzmmzzm.github.io/diffwam.github.io/.
Goal-conditioned visual navigation requires a robot to act under partial observability by anticipating how its motion will change the future egocentric view and whether that change brings it closer to the goal. Navigation world models provide such visual foresight, but they remain prediction modules that require an external planner to convert predicted futures into closed-loop control. We propose Navigation World Action Model (NavWAM), a diffusion-transformer policy that turns navigation world-model prediction into executable action by representing future observations, goal-progress values, and action chunks in a shared latent sequence. By learning future prediction jointly with the action and value targets that determine closed-loop behavior, NavWAM makes visual foresight directly usable for robot control. We build NavWAM through simulation pretraining and real-robot adaptation, and evaluate it on image-goal navigation against planning-based world models and a representative direct navigation policy. Across offline benchmarks and closed-loop real-robot deployment, NavWAM improves over planning-based world-model baselines in our evaluations while using the default policy mode without CEM-style action search. Project page: https://dachii-azm.github.io/navwam/
Daichi Azuma, Taiki Miyanishi, Koya Sakamoto +6
The University of Tokyo · National Institute of Informatics · AIRoA +1
Visual navigation requires agents to reach goals in complex environments through perception and planning. World models address this task by simulating action-conditioned state transitions to predict future observations. Current navigation world models typically learn state evolution under actions within the compressed latent space of a Variational Autoencoder, where spatial compression often discards fine-grained structural information and hinders precise control. To better understand the propagation characteristics of different representations, we conduct a linear dynamics probe and observe that dense DINOv2 features exhibit stronger linear predictability for action-conditioned transitions. Motivated by this observation, we propose the Representation Autoencoder-based Navigation World Model (RAE-NWM), which models navigation dynamics in a dense visual representation space. We employ a Conditional Diffusion Transformer with Decoupled Diffusion Transformer head (CDiT-DH) to model continuous transitions, and introduce a separate time-driven gating module for dynamics conditioning to regulate action injection strength during generation. Extensive evaluations show that modeling sequential rollouts in this space improves structural stability and action accuracy, benefiting downstream planning and navigation.
Mingkun Zhang, Wangtian Shen, Fan Zhang +3
Department of Precision Instrument, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA · Beijing Information Science and Technology University, Beijing, China