A robot's world model must remember objects that leave the camera's view. FloWM, a learned world model, keeps them in a spatial grid of features that it moves with five built-in velocities. A node memory instead keeps each object's position and velocity as numbers. We compare them in FloWM's own block world, with an oracle-fed Kalman tracker as the node memory. How the grid is read changes its score: a single-cell probe finds 66% of out-of-view blocks, while FloWM's own probe 89%. FloWM also scores 8 points higher in view although no frame is shown, which we attribute to its write-back of its own predictions. Out of view, the tracker reaches FloWM's range in 14KB against 5.6MB, with no probe. On diagonal motion, outside its five velocities, FloWM finds 11% of blocks even after fine-tuning, while the unchanged tracker keeps 93%. Faster blocks defeat both until one more allowed speed takes the tracker to 94%, where FloWM's built-in shifts would need 25 copies of its grid. A learned node memory must still replace the oracles and handle velocity under noise, long gaps, and the bounce.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) The room from above. Solid arrows show motion in the standard setting, and dashed arrows the diagonal and speed-2 (double head) motion that the varied setting adds. (b) One prediction step of FloWM’s grid memory. (c) The tracker, a node memory.
Figure 2
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Part
Tracker
FloWM
Finding blocks in a frame
Oracle: true masks
Learned: write transformer
Block position in a frame
Oracle: true position plus one-pixel noise
Learned: write transformer
Block appearance
Oracle: mean color inside the true mask
Learned: 256 features per cell
Agent’s own motion
Hand-set: from actions
Built in: shift and rotation by actions
Motion between steps
Hand-set: Kalman predict step
Built in: five velocity copies
Allowed speeds
Fitted: snap each axis to 0 or 1
Built in: the five velocities
Appendix
Table 2: Where each part of the two memories comes from. Oracle parts are given by the simulator. Hand-set parts are written by us, with no training. Fitted parts are estimated from noisy oracle positions on training videos of the standard setting, with thresholds chosen on the tuning videos. Built in parts are fixed by FloWM’s design. Learned parts are trained with FloWM’s frame-prediction loss, except the probe, which is trained to read positions. The table describes the tracker with allowed speeds 0 and 1.
Figure 3: The protocol for one block. Both memories receive the same context phase. FloWM receives the frames, and the tracker receives oracle detections from the same frames. At every predicted step, each memory names one grid cell for the block, and the answer is correct only if it is the block’s exact cell. A sighting is a context frame in which the block covers at least 12 pixels. We split answers by whether the block lies inside the camera’s view at the scored step and by the steps since the block’s last sighting.
Tracker variant
Out of view
All blocks
Exact positions, no speed snapping
93.7
One-pixel noise, no speed snapping
47.1
One-pixel noise, speed snapping (the tracker)
90.8
Exact positions, speed snapping
94.3
Blocks sighted at least twice †
Appendix
Table 3: Out-of-view accuracy (%) of tracker variants on the standard test videos. The row marked “the tracker” is the tracker of the main text. The upper rows score all 85,602 out-of-view answers. The lower rows score only the 83,202 out-of-view answers for blocks sighted in at least two context frames. A restart predicts a block forward from the tracker’s estimate at its last sighting, with no further matching.
Probe
Standard
Varied videos
MSE
Model
trained on
videos
All
Built-in
Diagonal
Speed 2
Standard
Varied
Released
Standard
86.9
16.3
75.8
3.6
4.3
0.000649
0.0148
Released
Varied ∗
–
6.2
22.3
2.2
3.1
Fine-tuned on varied, 20k steps
Varied ∗
84.5
20.1
46.8
13.4
15.0
0.00135
0.00747
From scratch on standard, 150k
Standard ∗
84.8
–
–
–
–
0.000824
0.0158
From scratch on varied, 150k
Varied ∗
30.5
13.1
20.7
10.5
11.8
0.00592
0.00790
Appendix
Table 4: FloWM on the varied setting, as overall accuracy (%) over answers in view and out of view. The standard-video column is on 1,024 fresh standard videos, which include the 256 test videos, and every score in it comes from heads trained on the standard setting while the model generated rollouts. The varied-video columns are on the 1,024 varied test videos and use the heads named in the second column. MSE is on 1,000 clips with 70 predicted frames. Built-in means one cell per step along one axis. Heads marked ∗ were trained while the model generated rollouts, and the other heads were trained on saved memory states. Probe scores carry no interval.
Diagonal and
Positions
Allowed speeds
All
Built-in
Diagonal
Speed 2
speed 2
IDF1
One-pixel noise
0, 1 and 2
93.4
91.0
94.1
93.9
93.9
93.6
One-pixel noise
0 and 1 (the tracker)
33.3
89.9
93.1
4.9
21.7
89.4
One-pixel noise
no speed snapping
56.5
47.1
54.2
59.5
58.5
88.3
Exact
no speed snapping
97.0
95.1
97.1
97.5
97.4
94.2
Exact
0, 1 and 2
97.0
95.4
97.2
97.3
97.3
95.6
Appendix
Table 5: The tracker on the 1,024 varied test videos: out-of-view accuracy (%) by motion type, and IDF1 (%). Each configuration ran once, after the code and settings were frozen and the run was registered.
Probe
Diagonal and
Model
trained on
Built-in
Diagonal
Speed 2
speed 2
Released
Standard
72.7
3.5
4.2
4.1
Released
Varied
18.6
2.1
3.1
2.9
Fine-tuned on varied, 20k steps
Varied
39.1
11.0
13.0
12.6
From scratch on varied, 150k
Varied
16.8
8.2
9.4
9.1
Appendix
Table 6: FloWM on the 1,024 varied test videos: out-of-view accuracy (%) by motion type, on the same answers as Table 5 . The first row comes from per-answer outputs. The other rows come from accuracies logged per motion type, and their last column assumes the first row’s answer counts.
Comparison
Difference
95% interval
Standard test videos, out of view: the tracker minus FloWM read by the convolutional probe
+ 2.1
0.5 to 3.7
FloWM, in view minus out of view, matched on steps since the last sighting
+ 7.5
6.7 to 8.4
The tracker, in view minus out of view, same matching
− 0.1
− 1.2 to 0.9
FloWM, a block after it enters view during prediction minus before, test videos
+ 4.6
3.7 to 5.5
The tracker minus FloWM, out of view, 10 to 19 steps since the last sighting
+ 6
4 to 8
The tracker minus FloWM, out of view, 100 to 139 steps since the last sighting
− 10
− 16 to − 4
Appendix
Table 7: The main-text comparisons that have an interval, in points of accuracy. Each difference is the first quantity minus the second, so a negative value means the first is lower. Intervals are 95% bootstrap intervals.
Visual world models enable robotic planning by predicting future observations, but dense latent-state propagation and sample-intensive trajectory optimization incur high inference latency and peak memory usage, limiting real-time deployment on resource-constrained platforms. Existing sparse world-model acceleration methods either rely on unguided token sparsification, which may discard planning-relevant information and restrict achievable sparsity, or introduce heavy auxiliary modules and cumbersome multi-stage training pipelines. In this work, we present Scope-WM, an efficient visual world model that scopes computation to prediction-relevant latent regions and promising action sequences. Scope-WM distills prediction relevance into a lightweight action-conditioned selector and applies full dynamics prediction only to a compact subset of selected tokens. It updates the remaining tokens using a compact summary of foreground states and their changes, allowing the background to perceive foreground dynamics without costly token-to-token interactions. During planning, Scope-WM preserves and reuses high-quality action sequences discovered during the initial MPC search, focusing subsequent search under reduced rollout budgets. The resulting pipeline requires only a one-off selector distillation followed by a single joint training stage for the sparse world model. On the challenging Push-T task, Scope-WM reduces peak GPU memory usage and planning time to 18.1% and 14.3% of those of dense DINO-WM, respectively, corresponding to a 6.97× planning speedup, while maintaining competitive task performance. Further evaluations across five diverse visual planning tasks demonstrate the general applicability of Scope-WM. Code is available at https://github.com/ChunZheng2022/Scope-WM.
Learning world models from offline trajectories enables agents to accomplish different tasks through planning. Object-centric (OC) representations, which decompose a scene into a set of slots that bind to its objects, have been proposed as an inductive bias for world models that are more sample-efficient and generalize better. Yet prior object-centric world models (OCWMs) take the slot encoder as given and evaluate only in-distribution, leaving open whether the object-centric bias actually delivers for planning and what within the OCWM drives it. We conduct a controlled study of OCWMs for visual model-predictive control along two axes: object-centric representation quality and generalization under distribution shift relative to scene-centric models. We find that (i) planning success correlates positively with unsupervised slot-quality metrics (FG-ARI, mBO), though the gains saturate at high slot quality; (ii) with well-bound slots, the auxiliary proprioception inputs and masking inductive bias that prior methods relied on become unnecessary; and (iii) under unseen distribution shifts, the OCWM with well-bound slots is more robust overall than the end-to-end trained scene-centric LeWM, while DINO-WM, built on similar frozen pretrained features, remains competitive -- pointing to pretrained features as a key contributor to robustness.
Shukrullo Nazirjonov, Sai Prasanna, Anna Manasyan +1
University of Tuebingen · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems
Long-term agents face growing storage demands as they accumulate experience. World models capture reusable regularities that can reduce the information stored for each experience. We formulate the problem of memory allocation conditioned on a world model and introduce MemoWM, a framework that uses shared predictions to compress retained information and reconstruct omitted content. Its task-aware allocation rule balances the expected impact of reconstruction errors against storage cost, retaining information with downstream value beyond the predictive prior. Across five long-term agent-memory benchmarks, MemoWM achieves 42.42% average answer accuracy, exceeding the strongest baseline by 2.62 percentage points, while reducing average experience-specific storage by 53.9% relative to MIRIX, the most storage-efficient baseline. Further analysis shows that stronger world models reduce per-experience storage at comparable task quality. Accounting for model parameters reveals a trade-off between shared model capacity and recurring storage costs, with the capacity that minimizes total storage increasing as more interactions are retained. Our code is available at https://github.com/Feld-maxiu/MemoWM.
Bingfan Zeng, Zhisheng Chen, Chenbo Sang +6
South China University of Technology · University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications +5