World Action Critic (WAC) Model: Joint Foresight and Criticism for Policy Learning
Authors: Xiangteng Zhang, Haoyuan Liu, Yang Guan, Jingliang Duan, Yao Lyu, Tao Zhang, Shuai Zhang, Kehua Sheng, Bo Zhang, Shengbo Eben Li
Organizations: School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University · SunRisingAI Lab · Didi Voyager Labs, Didi Autonomous Driving · College of AI, Tsinghua University
World models have shown considerable promise in sequential decision-making by anticipating the consequences of actions and providing predictive foresight for policy learning. However, learning to reason about counterfactual actions remains challenging, since predictive objectives may underemphasize information critical for action evaluation, while unexecuted actions lack observed futures for direct supervision. To address these challenges, we propose the World Action Critic (WAC) Model, which proposes multimodal action candidates and jointly learns candidate-conditioned future prediction and consequence evaluation. In our proposed framework, critic supervision directly shapes intermediate predictive representations during rollout, encouraging them to retain information needed to distinguish action quality. Observed futures supervise prediction for executed actions, while external task-quality targets provide evaluation signals for counterfactual candidates. Through joint optimization, critic signals from these candidates propagate into predictive representations without requiring their observed futures. Our theoretical analysis characterizes critic-guided feature retention and bounds candidate-selection regret. Applied to autonomous driving, WAC achieves 93.4 PDMS on NAVSIM-v1, demonstrating the effectiveness of jointly learning predictive foresight and consequence evaluation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of world models for decision making. (a) Future prediction provides an auxiliary learning signal for policy features. (b) An action-conditioned simulator supplies imagined states to a planner for reward-based evaluation and search. (c) WAM jointly models future states and actions for action generation. (d) WAC jointly learns candidate-conditioned future prediction and consequence evaluation. Factual future targets ground prediction, while candidate-quality supervision shapes predictive representations for counterfactual action comparison.
Figure 2: Joint prediction and criticism in WAC. Given latent state z and candidate action a , WAC jointly predicts future latent state z′ and quality score q . Asymmetric attention lets the critic read predictive features while keeping critic tokens hidden from latent prediction. Conditions are injected through adaptive layer normalization (AdaLN).
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
Comf. ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
End-to-End Planning
DiffusionDriveV2 [ 66 ]
98.3
97.9
94.8
99.9
87.5
91.2
iPad (ViT-L) [ 16 ]
99.2
97.4
96.3
99.7
87.8
91.7
SparseDriveV2 [ 39 ]
98.5
98.4
95.0
99.9
88.6
92.0
NaviHydra (V4096) [ 46 ]
98.7
98.6
96.2
100.0
88.7
92.7
DrivoR (train) [ 24 ]
98.9
98.3
96.2
100.0
89.1
93.1
Table 1: Comparison with end-to-end, vision-language-action, and world-model/world-action planners on NAVSIM-v1. We report overall PDMS and its safety, road-compliance, comfort, and progress components; higher is better for all metrics. Baseline results follow their reported sensor and training configurations. Using only front-camera observations and ego status, WAC achieves the highest overall PDMS and ego progress among the compared methods.
Method
Spearman ↑
PA (%) ↑
Low-score overestimation ↓
Drive-JEPA
0.468
74.02
44.16
WAC
0.551
77.11
34.02
Table 2: Candidate scoring quality on NAVSIM-v1. PA denotes pairwise ranking accuracy.
Figure 3: Selected trajectories in urban car-following, a signalized urban junction, and a wet urban junction (left to right). Each column pairs the front-camera trajectory projection with its BEV. Red denotes Drive-JEPA, green WAC (Ours), and blue dashed lines the recorded GT. Thin lines show the 32 candidates per method; thick lines show their selections. Endpoint dots in BEV mark four-second predictions.
Variant
AR
Future
Grad
PDMS ↑
Detached critic gradients
✓
✓
×
92.3
One-shot future prediction
×
✓
✓
92.6
No future supervision
✓
×
✓
93.0
Full WAC
✓
✓
✓
93.3
Table 3: WAC structure and supervision ablations on NAVSIM-v1.
Figure 4: Candidate scoring in three selected improvement examples. Each subfigure overlays all 32 Drive-JEPA candidates (red triangles) and all 32 WAC candidates (green circles). Stars mark selections: red outlines for Drive-JEPA and green fills for WAC. The dashed line indicates equality and the shaded band is ±5 PDMS points. Coincident candidates overlap. Each model generates its own candidates.
Poses per step
Rollout steps
Focal
PDMS ↑
2
4
×
92.8
4
2
×
93.3
4
2
✓
93.4
Table 4: Prediction interval and focal-loss ablation on NAVSIM-v1. Every trajectory has eight future poses.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Candidate evaluation and planning decisions. Thin trajectories show candidates and thick trajectories their selections. Below each scene, candidates are sorted by descending predicted PDMS within each method. Curves show predictions, dots evaluator scores, and stars the evaluator score of the selected candidate. Scores use the 0–100 scale.
Parameter
Value
Visual backbone
ViT-L, 24 layers
Joint world–critic layers
2
Trajectory decoder hidden layers
2
Model / FFN hidden width
256 / 1024
Attention heads
8
World–critic activation
SwiGLU
Appendix
Table 5: Key architecture and training hyperparameters.
World models for autonomous driving should anticipate the consequences that matter for driving decisions rather than reconstruct every detail of future scenes. However, predictive representations alone are not guaranteed to distinguish candidate actions that lead to different planning outcomes.We propose DA-WAM, a decision-aligned world action model that couples a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA) with candidate-level trajectory scoring. During joint training, the JEPA objective grounds future representations in observed scene dynamics, while the planning objectives encourage these representations to capture distinctions relevant to safety and utility. An action-conditioned predictor generates a distinct future latent for each candidate trajectory, and a multi-head trajectory scorer uses the corresponding latent to estimate planning factors and overall utility. In addition, safety-critical post-training with hard negatives further improves discrimination between geometrically similar trajectories with different safety outcomes. DA-WAM achieves state-of-the-art performance among learned camera-based planners on NAVSIM-v1, NAVSIM-v2, and Bench2Drive. Ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in driving decision-making.
Ruiguo Zhong, Xiaolong Chen, Benshan Ma +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Leapmotor · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Driving world models are often interpreted as counterfactual simulators for observed driving episodes: given a factual driving log, they are asked what would have happened under an alternative ego action. In this paper, we identify a fundamental mismatch between this goal and direct action-conditioned prediction. The direct prediction uses the shared history and the alternative action but not the factual continuation observed after that history. It can therefore generate a plausible future without preserving what actually happened in this episode. We formalize this gap using the causal recipe of abduction, action, and prediction and study it in a setting with a short time horizon, where the alternative ego action does not alter how surrounding agents evolve. To make the gap measurable, we construct a controlled simulation benchmark with factual outcomes and matched counterfactual outcomes. Across two representative world models, direct predictions fail to match the counterfactual ground truth, supporting our analysis. As a constructive check of this analysis, we introduce a deliberately simple, training-free pipeline that moves observed evidence into the counterfactual view and lets the frozen model complete what remains unknown. Even this simple construction raises the overall recovered fraction substantially and reduces perceptual distance to the matched counterfactual on both models. We hope this work draws attention to this gap and motivates better counterfactual prediction methods for driving world models.
Jiaru Zhang, Can Cui, Yi Xu +3
Purdue University · Bosch Center for Artificial Intelligence
General-purpose world models promise scalable policy evaluation, optimization, and planning, yet achieving the required level of robustness remains challenging. Unlike policy learning which primarily focuses on optimal actions, a world model needs to be reliable over a vast space of suboptimal actions, which are often underrepresented in action-labeled robot interactions. To address this challenge, we propose World Action Verifier (WAV), a framework that enables world models to identify their own prediction errors and self-improve. The key idea is to decompose action-conditioned state prediction into two independently verifiable factors: state plausibility and action reachability. We show that verifying these factors is significantly more tractable than direct forward prediction due to two underlying asymmetries: the broader availability of action-free data and the lower dimensionality of action-relevant features. Leveraging these asymmetries, we augment a world model with (i) a diverse subgoal generator obtained from video corpora and (ii) a sparse inverse model that infers actions from a subset of state features. By enforcing cycle consistency among proposed subgoals, inferred actions, and forward rollouts, WAV provides an effective verification mechanism in under-explored regimes, where existing methods often fail. Across nine tasks spanning MiniGrid, RoboMimic, and ManiSkill, our method achieves 2x higher sample efficiency while improving downstream policy performance by over 22%.
Yuejiang Liu, Fan Feng, Lingjing Kong +6
Stanford University · UC San Diego · Carnegie Mellon University +2