World Action Models (WAMs) jointly predict future video and generate actions, yet remain sensitive to task-irrelevant visual perturbations, i.e., changes in visual appearance that should not affect robot behavior. We identify a gap in conventional WAM training: video prediction encourages representations to preserve appearance information, while action generation does not explicitly enforce invariance to task-irrelevant appearance. Data augmentation exposes WAMs to such perturbations but does not require perturbed and nominal observations to produce consistent action representations, and alignment with external pretrained features does not guarantee the desired invariance. To address this gap, we propose PICA-WAM, a self-supervised training framework that casts perturbation invariance as an auxiliary cross-appearance self-alignment task for WAMs. An exponential-moving-average (EMA) teacher processes the nominal observation to provide a deeper-layer target, while the online WAM processes a perturbed observation and aligns its shallower-layer action representation to this target through a lightweight projection head. Across four strong WAMs evaluated on RoboTwin 2.0, LIBERO-Plus, EBench, and a real robot, PICA-WAM consistently improves robustness under visual perturbations, preserves nominal performance in simulation, and raises the real robot success rate. PICA-WAM further reduces the sensitivity of video features to task-irrelevant appearance and its propagation into actions, as shown by paired layer-wise diagnostics. Code: https://github.com/YudeZou/PICA-WAM-release
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PICA-WAM . Top: augmentation supervises each observation independently, whereas PICA-WAM aligns shallower-layer action representations of the student on the perturbed observation to deeper-layer ones of its EMA teacher on the nominal observation. Bottom left: schematic of action representations. Matching shapes denote the same underlying task state across nominal and perturbed observations. Bottom right: performance. Ours is the best PICA-WAM result, and each axis is scaled linearly to the range of results per benchmark.
Figure 2: Framework of PICA-WAM . (a) A two-stream WAM is trained with Lgen=Lvideo+Laction . PICA-WAM adds an auxiliary self-alignment task between the action streams of the model and its EMA teacher. (b) The student θ reads a perturbed observation at video noise level σ and is trained with Lgen . The EMA teacher ϕ reads the nominal observation of the same underlying task state at σ−δ . Projected shallower-layer action representations of the student are aligned to deeper-layer ones of the teacher under stop-gradient (sg), giving Lalign .
Figure 3: Video-stream appearance sensitivity and its transfer into actions. Left: layer-wise sensitivity of video features on unseen perturbation families (Section 4.2 ). Right: action deviation caused by swapping the perturbed video features of one layer band into a nominal prediction, as a median ratio to that of the Baseline on the same observation pairs. In the highlighted layers 21–25, the sensitivity of +Aug rebounds, and these layers retain 84% of the action leakage of the Baseline under +Aug, compared with 35% under PICA-WAM .
Video Sensitivity ↓
Action Sensitivity ↓
Drift (mm) ↓
Method
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Seen
Unseen
Baseline
0.610
0.755
0.407
0.486
16.14
16.42
+ Aug
0.530
0.655
0.146
0.189
9.41
11.24
PICA-WAM (Ours)
0.369
0.455
0.057
0.075
5.49
6.21
Table 1: Paired Consistency under LIBERO-Plus Visual Perturbations. Sensitivity is measured at layer 8 of each stream, and drift is the end-effector distance after executing the 32-step action chunks predicted from the paired observations. Lower is better. Metrics and seen/unseen families are defined in Section 4.2 . Bold and underline denote the best and second-best values.
Method
Clean
Random
Avg.
Method without Emb. PT.
StarVLA ( Ye et al., 2026a )
46.5
3.2
24.8
AHA-WAM ( Cai et al., 2026a )
64.3
3.2
33.8
Fast-WAM ( Yuan et al., 2026b )
77.8
1.9
39.9
Copper-Policy ( Feng et al., 2026 )
70.8
13.0
41.9
CSWAM † ( Liu et al., 2026a )
78.5
9.4
43.9
Table 2: Evaluation Results on RoboTwin 2.0 Clean-to-Random. Method groups distinguish models with and without large-scale embodied pretraining. † , ‡ , and § denote methods built on the Fast-WAM, LingBot-VA, and InternW0- Δ backbones, respectively. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best values within each group.
LIBERO-Plus
Method
LIBERO
Robot
Language
Light
BG
Noise
Layout
Camera
Avg.
Method without Emb. PT.
Fast-WAM ( Yuan et al., 2026b )
97.6
44.5
68.9
78.2
53.7
37.7
60.7
16.4
51.5
Robust-WAM † ( Yan et al., 2026 )
97.9
43.4
73.6
90.2
62.6
56.8
67.8
28.7
58.9
4D-WAM † ( Yang et al., 2026b )
98.6
64.3
90.6
94.3
57.7
69.1
79.2
45.2
71.0
GaussianWAM † ( Zhang et al., 2026b )
97.6
61.6
75.4
90.8
58.2
83.0
76.7
54.7
71.3
Table 3: Evaluation Results on LIBERO and LIBERO-Plus. Method groups distinguish models with and without large-scale embodied pretraining before LIBERO adaptation. † and § denote methods built on the Fast-WAM and InternW0- Δ backbones, respectively. Bold denotes the best value and underline the second best within each group.
Mobile Manipulation
Table-Top Dex. & Prec.
Overall
Method
SR
Score
SR
Score
SR
Score
X-VLA ( Zheng et al., 2026 )
29.3
40.2
8.6
24.1
23.7
35.8
Fast-WAM ( Yuan et al., 2026b )
34.0
46.1
2.9
13.0
25.6
37.1
Cosmos3-Edge ( Agarwal et al., 2026 )
33.2
46.6
18.6
31.6
29.3
42.5
GigaBrain-0.7 ( Team et al., 2026 )
31.6
41.4
37.9
59.0
33.3
46.0
π0 ( Black et al., 2024 )
34.0
46.8
32.9
49.4
33.7
47.5
Table 4: Evaluation Results on EBench . Mobile Manipulation contains 19 tasks and Table-Top Dexterous-and-Precise contains 7 tasks, and all averages weight tasks equally. † denotes a method built on the OpenWAM- α backbone. Results of other methods are taken from the EBench leaderboard. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best values.
Method
Light
BG
Noise
Layout
Camera
Avg.
Baseline
93.2
60.6
67.2
81.4
45.7
69.6
+ SRA ( Jiang et al., 2025a )
94.1
60.6
70.1
82.5
50.8
71.6
+ Aug
93.3
74.2
87.1
78.3
62.1
79.0
+ SRA
92.7
80.0
92.1
79.0
62.7
81.3
+ PICA-WAM align video
94.0
79.0
92.8
82.2
60.0
81.6
+ PICA-WAM align both
95.4
76.3
93.6
79.8
58.7
80.7
Table 5: Ablation Results on LIBERO-Plus. We report success rates (%) and their unweighted mean on the five dimensions that perturb the visual scene. Robot initial state and language are excluded because they perturb the initial pose and the instruction. Baseline and +Aug are the controlled variants of Section 4.1 . + SRA adds self-alignment with the noise-level and layer gaps but without the appearance gap. The PICA-WAM rows add the alignment of Eq. ( 3 ) to +Aug and differ in the aligned stream. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best values.
Figure 4: Real-world evaluation scene under the four lighting conditions. The photos show the eight task objects on the evaluation tabletop, which differs from the one used for the demonstrations. The bowl, the mouse, and the pen are new instances. The demonstrations are recorded under natural lighting, whereas the blue, green, and orange lights shift the apparent colors of the tabletop and the objects. For example, the banana appears pink under blue light.
Method
Banana
Bowl ∗
Cucumber
Mouse ∗
Orange
Pen ∗
Cube
Tissue
Avg.
π0.5
85.0
100.0
85.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
75.0
55.6
OpenWAM- α
5.0
95.0
5.0
25.0
0.0
70.0
0.0
65.0
33.1
PICA-WAM (Ours) †
95.0
100.0
90.0
30.0
75.0
100.0
10.0
40.0
67.5
Table 6: Real-World Success Rates per Task (%). Each task is evaluated in 20 trials, five under each lighting condition. Avg. is over all 160 trials. ∗ marks objects replaced with new instances at evaluation. † denotes a method built on the OpenWAM- α backbone. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best values.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Aligned stream
action
Student layer m / teacher layer n
8 / 20
Loss weight λ
0.05
Noise-level gap δ
U[0,0.2)
Projection head
Linear–GELU–Linear, hidden width 512
EMA decay
0.9999 (fp32)
Appendix
Table 7: Alignment hyperparameters shared by Fast-WAM, LingBot-VA, InternW0- Δ , and OpenWAM- α . Layers are indexed from 0.
Benchmark
Model
Steps
Batch
RoboTwin 2.0
LingBot-VA
30,000
16
Fast-WAM
21,145
128
InternW0- Δ
5,370
1,024
LIBERO
Fast-WAM
21,700
128
InternW0- Δ
16,275
256
EBench
OpenWAM- α
100,000
256
Appendix
Table 8: Training configurations. InternW0- Δ and OpenWAM- α are trained on 33-frame clips, at a stride of 4 from three cameras for OpenWAM- α . LingBot-VA’s batch size counts episodes.
Figure 5: Executed trajectories under visual perturbations. Each column shows one LIBERO-Plus state under a perturbed observation. Each curve is the end-effector path obtained by executing the 32-step action chunk predicted from a different perturbed observation of the same state with the same noise seed. The white dot marks the start position. A tighter fan indicates more consistent actions across appearances. The first three columns are the states with the largest baseline drift. The last two are drawn at random.
Nominal observation
Perturbed observation
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Baseline
24.62
0.864
19.82
0.734
+ Aug
22.38
0.829
24.14
0.813
PICA-WAM
22.44
0.828
24.12
0.813
Appendix
Table 9: Video prediction fidelity on 96 LIBERO training clips, averaged over the third-person and wrist cameras, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. The perturbed observations are constructed with the training distribution T .
World Action Models (WAMs) commonly rely on video generation to bridge visual world modeling and robot control. However, video-based WAMs face three coupled limitations: dense multi-frame future tokens make inference costly, full video prediction spends capacity on action-irrelevant temporal and appearance details, and long-horizon future imagination may introduce errors that mislead action prediction. These issues raise a simple question: Does world action model really need video generation? We propose ImageWAM, a simple WAM framework that repurposes pretrained image editing models for robot action prediction. In contrast to video generation, image editing provides a better-matched prior: it only needs to model a target-frame transformation, focuses on action-relevant current-to-target visual differences, and grounds task instructions to localized visual changes through edit pretraining. In practice, ImageWAM does not decode the target frame at inference time; instead, it conditions a flow-matching action expert on the KV caches produced by image-editing denoising, using them as a compact world-action context. ImageWAM outperforms standard VLA baselines and matching competitive WAMs without additional policy pretraining across different simulator and real-world experiments. It also reduces FLOPs to 1/6 and latency to 1/4 of video-based WAMs. Attention analysis further shows that editing caches focus on task-relevant change regions, supporting image editing as an effective alternative to video-based world-action modeling.
Yuyang Zhang, Wenyao Zhang, Zekun Qi +7
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Tsinghua University · Tencent Robotics X +1
World Action Models (WAMs) inherit powerful priors from pretrained video generation models, but their variational autoencoder (VAE) representations are optimized for visual reconstruction rather than manipulation. External visual representations can improve manipulation, but existing methods couple representation choices with different integration mechanisms, obscuring their individual effects. We systematically compare visual representations, five integration mechanisms, and feature combinations under controlled settings. Our study yields three main findings. First, strong general-purpose visual representations provide broader robustness gains and can match or outperform representations pretrained for specific visual capabilities. Second, channel-wise joint prediction achieves the highest average success rate; further analyses suggest that future-feature prediction and the action expert's effective use of added visual information contribute to its gains. Third, additional sources should be selected for the task-relevant information they contribute beyond existing representations, as the same source can help one combination but harm another. However, even the best evaluated composition provides a smaller additional gain than the initial improvement from adding a strong general-purpose representation to the VAE-only baseline. We instantiate the resulting Representation Recipe as R2-WAM. It achieves state-of-the-art performance on RoboCasa GR1 Tabletop with an 84.7% success rate and reaches 92.8% on RoboTwin 2.0, improving over the VAE-only baselines by 5.9 and 2.2 percentage points, respectively. Taken together, these findings suggest that future work should prioritize stronger general-purpose visual representations and more effective mechanisms for integrating them into WAMs, with feature composition serving as a supplementary route to improvement.
Kai Liu, Jiangran Lyu, Tingyu Deng +9
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Galbot · Peking University +2
World Action Models (WAMs) emerge as a promising foundation for policy refinement by predicting the consequences of sampled actions. However, visually plausible predictions can mislead policy refinement if they fail to reflect the input actions. To address this mismatch, we introduce R2-WAM, a two-stage repair-and-reject post-training framework that first improves the consistency of predicted futures with input actions, then uses these futures to select inferior action samples for negative fine-tuning. The repair stage grounds imagination in observed robot behavior through a kinematic alignment score that measures agreement between predicted and demonstrated motion, enabling the predicted video to faithfully reflect its input actions. Using the repaired video model, the rejection stage compares imagined outcomes of sampled and demonstrated actions, selectively applying negative fine-tuning to samples whose predicted task progress falls below the demonstrated reference by a prescribed margin. Together, the two stages extend video prediction from representation learning to consequence-based policy refinement without additional environment interaction or changes to the inference procedure. R2-WAM achieves 93.8% average success on RoboTwin 2.0 across clean and randomized settings. On the long-horizon real-world Fold Shirt task, it achieves 87.5% average success, compared with 0% for Fast-WAM. Our project page is available at https://r2-wam.github.io/.
Ruiyan Xu, Haisheng Su, Sixu Lin +4
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Manifold AI · Southeast University +1