From Pixels to Executable Physics: Behavior-Grounded World Models for Embodied Action Consequence Prediction
Authors: Ruo Chen, Jiahua Pang, Yingjie Niu, Hongyi Lin, Jun Tian, Yang Zhu, Chao Li
Organizations: DEEP Robotics · Zhejiang University · Beijing Institute of Technology · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Tsinghua University · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In outdoor environments, varying terrain and contact conditions can cause identical action commands to produce different motion outcomes for quadruped robots. Predicting these outcomes is essential for reliable navigation and informed path selection. Existing video world models can generate visually plausible futures, yet often struggle to capture robot dynamics and terrain interactions, leading to overly optimistic predictions of action outcomes. We present DR-WM, a physically consistent world model that incorporates robot-terrain contact dynamics to predict the consequences of quadruped actions. Starting from an initial RGB image, our method reconstructs scene geometry and integrates dense, dimensionless priors over terrain contact properties, calibrated using real-world action-response data. The resulting terrain model supports the simulation of physics with spatially varying contact properties such as friction. Given the initial state of the robot and candidate action sequences, we simulate its future motion and use the resulting camera trajectories and rendered geometry to guide the training of a video world model. The generated future observations are then used to update the terrain reconstruction, enabling iterative model rollouts without additional real-world images. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DR-WM substantially outperforms geometry-only baselines and baselines with uniform physical parameters on key physical metrics characterizing action outcomes, while achieving the best performance among the evaluated baselines. These physically grounded predictions support more informed action selection: across 90 challenging scenarios, an 8B vision-language model augmented with DR-WM outperforms an unassisted 32B vision-language model on five of six evaluation metrics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of DR-WM. The model constructs an executable terrain representation from visual observations, then simulates terrain dynamics to predict future observations and terrain-dependent action outcomes.
Figure 2: VLM action-selection pipeline. For each candidate action, DR-WM predicts future observations and iteratively feeds them back into scene reconstruction and physics simulation. The VLM compares the resulting rollouts and selects the safer action. In this example, it chooses the detour (Action 2) over traversing the muddy terrain (Action 1); see Section 4.4 .
Figure 3: Architecture of DR-WM. (a) PhyMap reconstructs geometry and physical priors. (b) Spatial and action ControlNets guide video generation using camera poses and rendered geometry.
Method
Imaging ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Motion ↑
Temp. Cons. ↑
Action Adh. ↑
Phys. Realism ↑
CogVideoX1.5
0.736
0.742
0.826
0.781
0.839
0.793
Wan2.2-TI2V
0.779
0.774
0.859
0.846
0.884
0.842
WorldStereo
0.783
0.763
0.875
0.861
0.892
0.858
Matrix-Game 3.0
0.789
0.782
0.886
0.864
0.913
0.870
Cosmos 3
0.797
0.791
0.881
0.873
0.908
0.864
EgoWM
0.624
0.653
0.798
0.669
0.801
0.706
Table 1: VLM-based automatic evaluation of generated video quality on on-robot scenes.
Method
RotErr ( ∘ ) ↓
ATE (m) ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
DINO Sim. ↑
Flow EPE ↓
FVD-16 ↓
CogVideoX1.5
6.357
20.497
13.68
0.4810
0.6082
21.546
738.37
Wan2.2-TI2V
7.717
11.860
13.53
0.4272
0.6990
18.819
683.42
WorldStereo
7.060
6.395
13.24
0.4843
0.6213
22.199
599.33
Matrix-Game 3.0
4.923
1.704
14.27
0.4623
0.6902
9.053
1199.86
Cosmos 3
20.805
3.653
15.09
0.3987
0.7441
11.992
801.40
EgoWM
7.469
1.073
15.24
0.4317
0.6377
8.592
824.32
Table 2: Reference aligned evaluation of camera motion and video fidelity.
Method
Act./Phys. Plaus. ↑
Motion Fid. ↑
Temp. Cons. ↑
Visual Qual. ↑
CogVideoX1.5
74.6
76.8
75.9
77.2
Wan2.2-TI2V
83.8
81.5
81.2
85.3
Cosmos 3
82.4
84.1
83.6
84.7
LingBot-World
51.8
56.3
60.4
66.8
DR-WM (Ours)
93.1
91.7
92.4
90.8
Table 3: Blind human evaluation on M20/Lite3 clips. Cells are mean ratings on a 0–100 scale.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on an uphill snowy scene. Cosmos 3 and LingBot-World follow straight, constant-speed motion conditions, whereas DR-WM predicts a dynamics-mediated trajectory from the action and inferred low-friction terrain properties. The right panel compares the resulting bird’s-eye trajectories.
Method
Base ATE (m) ↓
Vert. RMSE (m) ↓
R/P RMSE ( ∘ ) ↓
Vel. RMSE (m/s) ↓
Geometry Only
0.1683
0.0830
8.0215
1.2238
Uniform PhyMap
0.1450
0.0500
4.8269
1.0850
Full PhyMap
0.1380
0.0378
3.3553
1.0246
Table 4: Executable physical prior ablation on on-robot scenes.
VLM
Rollout model
Prog. ↑
Tilt RMS ( ∘ ) ↓
Tilt T10 ( ∘ ) ↓
Slip (m/s) ↓
Arrival (s) ↓
Eff. ↑
None
0.7492
2.5760
4.8268
0.1580
7.3188
0.7912
Qwen3-VL-8B
Generic WM
0.8442
3.1755
6.3250
0.1772
7.6076
0.8097
DR-WM
0.8754
2.2590
4.1889
0.1317
7.5310
0.8980
None
0.8586
2.5856
5.1715
0.1675
7.5415
0.9284
Qwen3-VL-32B
Generic WM
0.8465
2.6262
5.0278
0.1556
7.5785
0.9130
DR-WM
0.8921
2.1871
4.0894
0.1351
7.3338
0.9699
Table 5: VLM action selection on 90 challenging scenes with no future context, generic world-model rollouts, or DR-WM’s closed-loop physical–visual rollouts.
Figure 5: Illustration of robot data collection and testing.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Signal group
ROS 2 type / encoding
Rate (Hz)
Messages
Recorded content
Fisheye cameras
CompressedVideo /H.264
∼ 10
4×300
1920 × 1536 surround-view video
LiDAR
PointCloud2 /CDR
∼ 10
2×300
x,y,z , intensity, ring, point time
Inertial sensing
Imu /CDR
∼ 200
5,994
Orientation, angular velocity, acceleration
Joint feedback
JointsData /CDR
∼ 200
6,001
16-joint position, torque, velocity, temperature, status
LIO odometry
Odometry /CDR
∼ 200
6,000
6-DoF pose, velocity, covariance
Motion state
MotionInfo /CDR
∼ 20
600
Velocity, yaw rate, height, state, gait, payload
Appendix
Table 6: Representative sensor and control inventory from Physcene–Robot . The 30 s MCAP recording stores calibration as an attachment.
Table 9: Comparison with VLM-based physical-property prediction methods.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison with VLM-based physical-property prediction methods.
Figure 7: Qualitative results of the Physcene–Image dataset from four data sources: the on-robot collection, indoor dataset, web collection, and off-road dataset.
Figure 8: Composition of the Physcene–Image dataset development.
Figure 9: Qualitative effects of executable physical priors on robot motion. Normal terrain produces stable forward motion. Then low stiffness causes sinking steps on mud, high roughness causes uneven motion on cobblestone, and low friction causes foot slippage on snow.
3D control
Spatial refs.
Action control
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
MAE ↓
Grad. err. ↓
Temp. err. ↓
LPIPS ↓
DINO Sim. ↑
Flow EPE ↓
FVD-16 ↓
−
−
−
13.629
0.2629
0.1572
0.0347
0.1353
0.4062
0.7882
8.422
1153.32
✓
−
−
15.523
0.3062
0.1191
0.0317
0.1321
0.2537
0.8333
6.707
572.87
−
✓
−
13.703
0.2639
0.1555
0.0346
0.1353
0.3956
0.7902
8.445
1097.23
✓
✓
−
15.672
0.3098
0.1167
0.0315
0.1307
0.2465
0.8462
6.590
604.32
−
−
✓
14.091
0.2272
0.1475
0.0321
0.1399
0.3613
0.6005
9.844
1042.64
✓
✓
✓
16.030
0.3230
0.1106
0.0314
0.1280
0.2337
0.8758
6.292
567.39
Appendix
Table 10: Video fidelity across inference-time conditioning variants. All values are scene-level means computed from generated outputs on their original scales.
Input to PhyMap
Geometry error ↓
Coverage ↑
Physics rank ↑
Genesis param. error ↓
Behavior error ↓
Single Frame
0.045
34.6
0.244
0.029
1.274
Generated History
0.039
53.2
0.351
0.026
1.269
Real History
0.031
54.3
1.000
0.019
1.221
GT Geometry
0.000
100.0
0.680
0.000
1.240
Appendix
Table 11: Physical remapping with different visual inputs.
Method
Map drift @4.8s ↓
Map drift @9.6s ↓
Video error @4.8s ↓
Video error @9.6s ↓
Static Frame-0
2.093
2.949
0.683
0.673
Visual History Only
2.092
2.952
0.700
0.703
Geometry Update Only
1.535
1.778
0.675
0.682
Full model (observed poses)
1.523
1.702
0.661
0.662
GT-History Oracle
0.146
0.189
0.653
0.652
Full-GT Oracle (observed poses)
0.000
0.000
0.652
0.649
Appendix
Table 12: Trajectory-conditioned causal rollout on 50 scenes at 4.8 and 9.6 s.
Method
ATE @4.8s (m) ↓
ATE @9.6s (m) ↓
RotErr @9.6s ( ∘ ) ↓
Vel. RMSE @9.6s (m/s) ↓
A. Frozen Initial Map
0.617
1.345
16.307
0.534
B. Online Geo. + Frozen Physics
0.608
1.334
13.773
0.425
C. Online Geometry Only
0.653
1.404
15.781
0.392
D. Online Uniform PhyMap
0.604
1.267
14.198
0.359
E. Full DR-WM
0.568
1.242
13.096
0.322
Appendix
Table 13: Strict Genesis-in-the-loop motion prediction on 50 held-out scenes.