Organizations: Laboratory of Brain Atlas and Brain-inspired Intelligence, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · State Key Laboratory of Brain Cognition and Brain-inspired Intelligence Technology, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Future Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Autoregressive world models have emerged as a powerful paradigm for sample efficient decision making, yet their open loop rollouts often exhibit increasing drift that leads to error accumulation even within a relatively small planning horizon. Hierarchical temporal abstraction is a natural candidate to mitigate such drift by reducing the effective prediction horizon; however, existing hierarchical designs can introduce added structural and conceptual complexity, sometimes making them difficult to control and limiting gains over flat baselines. To this end, we introduce MHWA (Multi-timescale Hierarchical World-Action model), which employs a strided high level context channel to reduce global context update frequency, effectively curbing the propagation of compounding drift. Crucially, via context aware routing, the gating network dynamically reconfigures a low level mixture of experts by using both global context and current observations, thereby enabling flexible high-low coordination, helping alleviate interference commonly observed in static hierarchies. Empirically, using RLiable's seed-by-game aggregation, MHWA (77M parameters) achieves an IQM human normalized score (HNS) of 0.884 across three training seeds on a 14-game Atari subset using 10% subsampled offline data, outperforming a matched JOWA-70M baseline (0.529) and achieving numerically comparable performance to JOWA-150M while using nearly half the parameters and 70.88% fewer training FLOPs per sequence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The architecture of MHWA. It is illustrated at a context-update timestep t=1+m⋅k . The model processes an interleaved sequence of observation ( ot ) and action ( at ) tokens. (Top) At this specific strided step, the High-Level Manager consumes the downsampled history to infer a slowly varying global context zctx , supervised by a skip-step prediction head pohigh that forecasts the observation at the next coarse step o^t+k . We refer to the original, complete sequence as the dense trajectory, in contrast to the downsampled input used by the manager. (Bottom) The Low-Level Worker operates at the atomic resolution. It employs a Context-Aware Dynamic Routing mechanism where a Gating Network utilizes both the current dense input and the refreshed high-level context zctx to dynamically route computation to a sparse subset of experts (MoE). The worker’s output drives the world model heads ( po,pr,pd ) and the critic head ( hQ ).
Game
Random
Human
MTBC
MGDT
EDT
Scaled-QL
JOWA
Ours
120M
200M
200M
80M
40M
70M
150M
77M
Assault
222.4
742.0
1203.5
1741.5
1915.5
2292.0
1578.3
1402.8
2302.0
1068.8
Atlantis
12850.0
29028.1
37812.5
2565750.0
2108166.7
49100.0
41662.5
228825.0
2690387.5
1690733.3
BeamRider
363.9
16926.5
786.0
6011.3
4149.8
7023.5
880.3
854.4
3498.0
4202.1
Carnival
0.0
3800.0
5560.0
2610.0
3678.8
1940.0
4685.0
3812.1
5316.0
881.7
Centipede
2090.9
12017.0
4046.6
4604.0
3389.9
3650.3
5669.3
4485.0
4677.0
4970.9
Table 1: Performance comparison on 14 Atari games. Baseline scores are from Cheng et al. [5] . We report raw scores for each game and aggregate metrics (Median and IQM Human-Normalized Scores) at the bottom. The best raw score for each game, excluding reference scores, is highlighted in bold . “Ours” denotes our 77M-parameter MHWA model. For Ours, per-game raw scores are averaged over three independently trained seeds; bottom aggregate rows report mean ± sample standard deviation over seed-level aggregate metrics. Full per-seed results are provided in Appendix D .
Model
IQM HNS
95% CI
GFLOPs/sequence
JOWA-70M
0.529
[0.459, 0.602]
84.238
MHWA-77M
0.884
[0.736, 1.031]
48.199
JOWA-150M [ 5 ]
0.833
–
165.524
Table 2: Matched performance and training computation. JOWA-70M and MHWA use three training seeds on the same 14-game dataset and batch setting. We report seed-by-game IQM HNS and 95% stratified-bootstrap CIs. JOWA-150M performance is the published reference. Forward+backward FLOPs use identical input shapes.
Figure 2: Quantitative comparison of open-loop prediction within the context window ( T=5 to 8 ). We analyze reconstruction quality (MSE, PSNR, SSIM) of MHWA-77M against JOWA-150M and a parameter-matched JOWA-70M. While the reduced-capacity JOWA-70M degrades rapidly as rollout depth increases, MHWA remains stable and, in terms of MSE and SSIM, matches or exceeds the larger JOWA-150M. The gap between MHWA and JOWA-70M is consistent with the benefit of structural inductive bias under constrained parameters.
Stop-gradient on
Stop-gradient off
Lhigh on
0.564
0.533
Lhigh off
0.503
0.387
Table 3: High-level supervision and gradient isolation. IQM HNS under the 44M/6-game ablation protocol. The Context Projector and worker remain trainable in all four settings.
Metric
Full
w/o Lhigh
w/o Laux
w/o MoE
MoE-only
w/o State
k=1
k=2
k=8
Median HNS
0.463
0.425
0.439
0.412
0.386
0.364
0.183
0.446
0.469
IQM HNS
0.564
0.503
0.444
0.450
0.445
0.359
0.214
0.446
0.517
ΔIQM(%)
–
10.8
21.3
20.2
21.1
36.3
62.1
20.9
8.3
Table 4: Ablation analysis on the 6-game subset (44M). For each variant, we average 16 evaluation episodes within each game and report Median and IQM human-normalized score (HNS) over the six resulting per-game scores. ΔIQM(%) denotes the relative IQM drop compared to the full model, i.e., (IQMFull−IQMvariant)/IQMFull×100 . Bold and underline mark the largest and second-largest ΔIQM(%) , respectively. All variants are controlled to have ≈ 44M parameters for fair comparison. Detailed per-game raw scores are provided in Appendix F .
Figure 3: PCA visualization of expert activations in the last MoE layer. (a) Full MHWA maps Assault and Phoenix closely together, indicating they utilize similar expert combinations, which aligns with their shared vertical shooting mechanics. (b, c) This structural similarity vanishes without high-level supervision or temporal stride, indicating a failure to capture shared cross-game dynamics.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Game
Difficulty
∣A∣
Split
Assault
Medium
7
Train
Atlantis
Hard
18
Train
BeamRider
Medium
9
Train
Carnival
Medium
6
Train
Centipede
Medium
18
Train
ChopperCommand
Easy
18
Train
Appendix
Table 5: Atari games used in our multi-game training set, with difficulty labels from [ 38 ] and discrete action-space sizes.
Model
GFLOPs/sequence
TFLOPs/training step
MHWA-77M
48.199
12.339
JOWA-70M
84.238
21.565
JOWA-150M
165.524
42.374
Appendix
Table 6: Forward+backward training computation at matched input shape.
Game
Seed 0
Seed 1
Seed 2
Mean
Sample SD
Assault
1,209.3
1,109.1
888.1
1,068.8
164.3
Atlantis
3,320,456.3
1,078,587.5
673,156.2
1,690,733.3
1,425,865.1
BeamRider
4,077.6
4,920.0
3,608.8
4,202.1
664.4
Carnival
1,300.0
305.0
1,040.0
881.7
516.1
Centipede
5,689.3
3,705.4
5,518.1
4,970.9
1,099.3
ChopperCommand
3,300.0
5,793.8
4,550.0
4,547.9
1,246.9
Appendix
Table 7: Per-seed results of MHWA-77M on the 14-game Atari benchmark.
Game
Seed 0
Seed 1
Seed 2
Mean
Sample SD
Assault
1,408.3
858.1
1,208.2
1,158.2
278.4
Atlantis
3,167,275.0
125,787.5
2,885,637.5
2,059,566.7
1,680,611.9
BeamRider
853.5
608.5
915.0
792.3
162.1
Carnival
3,243.8
1,293.8
690.0
1,742.5
1,334.7
Centipede
8,937.4
4,619.2
4,102.1
5,886.2
2,655.0
ChopperCommand
675.0
681.3
737.5
697.9
34.4
Appendix
Table 8: Per-seed results of matched JOWA-70M on the 14-game Atari benchmark.
Game
Random
DQN
JOWA-70M
JOWA-150M
MHWA Seed 0
MHWA Seed 1
MHWA Seed 2
MHWA Mean
Gravitar
173.0
473.0
387.4
273.3
375.2
271.8
284.4
310.5
MsPacman
307.3
3085.6
908.0
2016.7
1437.5
2006.2
1971.0
1804.9
Pong
-20.7
19.5
14.6
17.7
17.0
18.1
18.1
17.7
Robotank
2.2
63.9
13.8
25.0
12.4
11.3
9.3
11.0
YarsRevenge
3092.9
18089.9
16339.2
17506.2
16056.0
17760.4
19280.6
17699.0
Mean DNS
–
–
0.576
0.647
0.610
0.606
0.626
0.614 ± 0.010
Appendix
Table 9: Held-out Atari fine-tuning results. We report per-game raw scores and aggregate DQN-normalized scores (DNS). MHWA is evaluated over three seeds; the MHWA Mean column averages raw scores across the three seeds for per-game rows and reports mean ± sample standard deviation over seed-level aggregate DNS for the bottom rows.
Game
Random
Human
Full
w/o Lhigh
w/o Laux
w/o MoE
MoE-only
w/o State
k=1
k=2
k=8
Assault
222.4
742.0
1086.0
989.9
930.1
917.3
902.7
745.8
1003.6
843.2
1043.6
Carnival
0.0
3800.0
626.7
220.0
380.0
340.0
680.0
420.0
463.8
300.0
240.0
Centipede
2090.9
12017.0
5387.7
4527.0
4199.0
4530.0
2982.1
2801.3
3902.0
3228.0
3964.0
NameThisGame
2292.3
8049.0
9186.5
8480.0
4160.0
6950.0
8246.6
5690.6
3350.0
6770.0
8270.0
Phoenix
761.4
7242.6
3924.0
4214.4
4350.0
2628.1
4610.0
4040.9
1503.1
3120.0
4300.0
SpaceInvaders
148.0
1668.7
813.9
630.9
1205.0
961.9
110.0
485.0
796.9
950.0
745.0
Appendix
Table 10: Per-game raw scores for ablation variants on the 6-game subset. All variants use the 44M controlled setting. For each game and variant, we report the raw score averaged over 16 evaluation episodes. The bottom rows report Median and IQM HNS over the six per-game scores, matching Table 4 .
Hidden state supplied to Context Projector
Median HNS
IQM HNS
Trajectory-conditioned manager hidden state
0.425
0.503
Zero hidden state
0.424
0.406
Gaussian noise
0.410
0.381
Appendix
Table 11: Information controls for the fixed-weight manager pathway. All variants are separately trained in the 44M/6-game setting with Lhigh off and stop-gradient on.
Experts N
Top- K
MLP expansion
IQM HNS
2
1
2r0
0.429
8
4
r0/2
0.488
4
1
r0
0.542
8
2
r0
0.511
4
2
r0
0.564
Appendix
Table 12: Expert configuration study. IQM HNS on the six-game ablation benchmark.
Experts N
Top- K
Assault–Phoenix distance rank
4
2
1
4
1
14
8
2
1
8
4
4
Appendix
Table 13: Routing neighborhoods across expert configurations. Rank of the Assault–Phoenix distance among 15 game pairs in each configuration’s PCA projection; rank 1 is the closest pair.
Setting
Training r
Evaluation r
Median HNS
IQM HNS
Default
4
4
0.463
0.564
Inference-only
4
2
0.441
0.568
Inference-only
4
1
0.441
0.533
Retrained
2
2
0.484
0.558
Appendix
Table 14: Context-refresh schedules at fixed manager stride k=4 . The inference-only variants use the default checkpoint; the retrained variant uses r=2 during both training and evaluation.
Game
Default ( k=4,r=4 )
Retrained ( k=4,r=2 )
Assault
1086.0
1030.3
Carnival
626.7
758.8
Centipede
5387.7
7129.1
NameThisGame
9186.5
8205.0
Phoenix
3924.0
3751.3
SpaceInvaders
813.9
728.4
Appendix
Table 15: Per-game results after retraining with k=4,r=2 . Raw returns under the same 44M/6-game protocol.
Figure 4: Long-horizon open-loop reconstruction diagnostic from t=5 to t=54 . MHWA shows smoother long-horizon degradation than the smaller monolithic baseline and remains broadly comparable to, while being less affected by sharp fluctuations than, the 150M baseline; however, it does not eliminate eventual manifold departure.
Hierarchical world models plan over long horizons by passing predicted states from a coarse model to a lower-level controller. Choosing these states can be expensive: the upper-level planner repeatedly differentiates through candidate macro-action trajectories. We replace this search with a lightweight goal-conditioned network trained through the frozen high-level predictor. The network supplies a conditioning vector, while the predictor generates the next latent waypoint. Training uses hindsight goals and state-prediction losses on offline trajectories, without search-solution targets or macro-action labels. Inference retains an autoregressive high-level rollout, but requires no high-level candidate optimization. We evaluate this approach on the shared-latent HWM checkpoints distributed with H-JEPA, using three backbone seeds and three head initializations per backbone. With a common evaluation protocol, mean success is 70.4% on Cube, 48.7% on Push-T, 100.0% on FourRoom, and 71.1% on Visual AntMaze. The method improves over the corresponding HWM search baseline on three environments and has the same mean on Push-T. Dedicated measurements on an NVIDIA L40S give 1.28-4.39x end-to-end speedups for batched evaluation. Ablations identify state-adaptive conditioning as a consistent contributor, while predictor-mediated subgoals and unrestricted conditions have environment-dependent benefits.
Xiang Kaibo, Liu Qingfeng
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Hosei University
World models are a promising path to zero-shot embodied control through planning. However, existing world model planners struggle on long-horizon, multi-stage tasks: prediction errors compound and naive search is exponential in the planning horizon. Hierarchy mitigates both by decomposing tasks into shorter, tractable subproblems; yet prior hierarchical approaches either amortize control into task-specific policies (hierarchical RL) or assume low-dimensional states and known dynamics (classical hierarchical MPC). We present Hierarchical Planning with Latent World Models (HWM), an architecture and planning paradigm for hierarchical model predictive control directly on visual world models trained solely via next-latent prediction. HWM learns world models at multiple temporal scales within a shared latent space, so predictions from the long horizon model serve as subgoals for the short horizon model via latent matching, without task-specific rewards or hierarchical policies. To keep long-horizon search tractable, HWM learns an action encoder that compresses primitive action chunks into latent macro-actions. On real-world Franka manipulation, HWM solves pick-and-place from a single goal image at 70% success vs. 0% for single-level planning. Across simulated push manipulation and maze navigation, HWM consistently improves performance on long-horizon tasks while requiring up to 3x less planning compute.
Wancong Zhang, Basile Terver, Artem Zholus +7
FAIR at Meta · New York University · Mila - Québec AI Institute +1
Recent World-Action (WA) models demonstrate strong generalization ability and data efficiency, but they typically rely on expert trajectories for training. This reliance limits their ability to acquire fine-grained manipulation skills beyond the demonstration distribution and prevents them from continuously improving through real-world interaction. To address these limitations, we propose WAM-RL, a reinforcement learning framework that enables joint optimization of the world model and the action model through online interaction with the environment. By allowing the two components to co-evolve, our approach enhances fine-grained control and adaptability. Specifically, a WA model consists of a world model and an actor. We design a tailored reinforcement learning method with hierarchical optimization to coordinate their improvement. On the methodological side, we systematically investigate the effects of applying reinforcement learning to the action model, as well as online training of the world model within an RL setting. Our experiments reveal a key insight: optimizing only the actor yields improvements on short-horizon tasks, but fails to provide significant gains on long-horizon tasks. In contrast, jointly optimizing both the world model and the actor is critical for achieving strong performance in long-horizon settings. Our work is the first to introduce reinforcement learning into the World-Action paradigm, and provides insights into how online optimization of both the action head and the world model impacts overall performance.
Zezhong Qian, Xiaowei Chi, Yu Qi +3
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · Northeastern University · Tsinghua University